Istoria Dogmei

History of Dogma - Volume I
Author(s): Harnack, Adolf (1851-1930)

Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Description: Harnack’s multi-volume work is considered a monument of
liberal Christian historiography. For Harnack, applying the
methods of historical criticism to the Bible signified a return
to true Christianity, which had become mired in unnecessary
and even damaging creeds and dogmas. Seeking out what
“actually happened,” for him, was one way to strip away all
but the foundations of the faith. With the History of Dogma
series, Harnack sets out on this project, tracing the accumu-
lation of Christianity’s doctrinal systems and assumptions,
particularly those inherited from Hellenistic thought. As Har-
nack explains, only since the Protestant Reformation have
Christians begun to cast off this corrupting inheritance, which
must be entirely cast off if Christianity is to remain credible
and relevant to people’s lives. Rather controversially, the
historian rejects the Gospel of John as authoritative on the
basis of its Greek influences.
Kathleen O’Bannon
CCEL Staff
Subjects: Doctrinal theology
Doctrine and dogma
i
Contents
Title Page 1
Volume I. 2
Prefatory Material 3
Introductory Division 13
Chapter I. Prolegomena to the Discipline of the History of Dogma 14
Chapter II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma 44
Supplementary 110
The Genesis of the Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic 115
Dogmatic Theology and the First Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine
Chapter I. Historical Survey 116
Chapter II. The Element Common to All Christians and the Breach with Judaism 119
Chapter III. The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in Gentile 123
Christianity as It Was Being Developed into Catholicism
Chapter IV. The Attempts of the Gnostics to Create an Apostolic Dogmatic, 183
and a Christian Theology; or, the Acute Secularising of Christianity
Chapter V. Marcion’s Attempt to Set Aside the Old Testament Foundation of 218
Christianity to Purify Tradition, and to Reform Christendom on Basis of Pauline
Gospel
Chapter VI. The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the Notion of 234
Jewish Christianity
Appendices 258
Appendix I. On the Conception of Pre-existence 258
Appendix II. On Liturgies and the Genesis of Dogma 268
Appendix III. On Neoplatonism 270
Indexes 289
Index of Scripture References 290
Greek Words and Phrases 292
ii
Latin Words and Phrases 315
Index of Pages of the Print Edition 323
iii
This PDF file is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, www.ccel.org. The mission of
the CCEL is to make classic Christian books available to the world.
• This book is available in PDF, HTML, ePub, and other formats. See
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma1.html.
• Discuss this book online at http://www.ccel.org/node/3448.
The CCEL makes CDs of classic Christian literature available around the world through the
Web and through CDs. We have distributed thousands of such CDs free in developing
countries. If you are in a developing country and would like to receive a free CD, please
send a request by email to cd-request@ccel.org.
The Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a self supporting non-profit organization at

Calvin College. If you wish to give of your time or money to support the CCEL, please visit
http://www.ccel.org/give.
This PDF file is copyrighted by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. It may be freely
copied for non-commercial purposes as long as it is not modified. All other rights are re-
served. Written permission is required for commercial use.
iv
Title Page
HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK
ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW

OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

EDITION
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOLUME I
iv
1
Volume I.
Volume I.
2
Prefatory Material
VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.
Ein theologisches Buch erhælt erst dadurch einen Platz in der Weltlitteratur, dass es
Deutsch und Englisch gelesen werden kann. Diese beiden Sprachen zusammen haben auf
dem Gebiete der Wissenschaft vom Christenthum das Lateinische abgelöst. Es ist mir daher
eine grosse Freude, dass mein Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte in das Englische übersetzt
worden ist, und ich sage dem Uebersetzer sowie den Verlegern meinen besten Dank.
Der schwierigste Theil der Dogmengeschichte ist ihr Anfang, nicht nur weil in dem
Anfang die Keime fur alle späteren Entwickelungen liegen, und daher ein Beobachtungsfehler
beim Beginn die Richtigkeit der ganzen folgenden Darstellung bedroht, sondern auch
desshalb, weil die Auswahl des wichtigsten Stoffs aus der Geschichte des Urchristenthums
und der biblischen Theologie ein schweres Problem ist. Der Eine wird finden, dass ich zu
viel in das Buch aufgenommen habe, und der Andere zu wenig—vielleicht haben Beide
recht; ich kann dagegen nur anführen, dass sich mir die getroffene Auswahl nach wiederhol-
tem Nachdenken und Experimentiren auf’s Neue erprobt hat.
Wer ein theologisches Buch aufschlagt, fragt gewöhnlich zuerst nach dem “Standpunkt”
des Verfassers. Bei geschichtlichen Darstellungen sollte man so nicht fragen. Hier handelt
es sich darum, ob der Verfasser einen Sinn hat für den Gegenstand den er darstellt, ob er
Originales und Abgeleitetes zu unterscheiden versteht, ob er seinen Stoff volkommen kennt,
ob er sich der Grenzen des geschichtlichen Wissens bewusst ist, und ob er wahrhaftig ist.
Diese Forderungen erhalten den kategorischen Imperativ für den Historiker; aber nur indem
vi
man rastlos an sich selber arbeitet, sind sie zu erfüllen,—so ist jede geschichtliche Darstellung
eine ethische Aufgabe. Der Historiker treu sein: ob er das gewesen ist, darnach soll mann
fragen.
Berlin, am 1. Mai, 1894.
ADOLF HARNACK.
THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. vii
No theological book can obtain a place in the literature of the world unless it can be
read both in German and in English. These two languages combined have taken the place
of Latin in the sphere of Christian Science. I am therefore greatly pleased to learn that my
“History of Dogma” has been translated into English, and I offer my warmest thanks both
to the translator and to the publishers.
The most difficult part of the history of dogma is the beginning, not only because it
contains the germs of all later developments, and therefore an error in observation here
endangers the correctness of the whole following account, but also because the selection of
the most important material from the history of primitive Christianity and biblical theology
3
Prefatory Material
is a hard problem. Some will think that I have admitted too much into the book, others too
little. Perhaps both are right. I can only reply that after repeated consideration and experiment
I continue to be satisfied with my selection.
In taking up a theological book we are in the habit of enquiring first of all as to the
“stand-point” of the Author. In a historical work there is no room for such enquiry. The
question here is, whether the Author is in sympathy with the subject about which he writes,
whether he can distinguish original elements from those that are derived, whether he has a
thorough acquaintance with his material, whether he is conscious of the limits of historical
knowledge, and whether he is truthful. These requirements constitute the categorical imper-
ative for the historian: but they can only be fulfilled by an unwearied self-discipline. Hence
viii
every historical study is an ethical task. The historian ought to be faithful in every sense of
the word ; whether he has been so or not is the question on which his readers have to decide.
Berlin, 1st May, 1894.
ADOLF HARNACK.
FROM THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xix
The task of describing the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma which I have attempted to
perform in the following pages, has hitherto been proposed by very few scholars, and,
properly speaking, undertaken by one only. I must therefore crave the indulgence of those
acquainted with the subject for an attempt which no future historian of dogma can avoid.
At first I meant to confine myself to narrower limits, but I was unable to carry out that
intention, because the new arrangement of the material required a more detailed justification.
Yet no one will find in the book, which presupposes the knowledge of Church history so
far as it is given in the ordinary manuals, any repertory of the theological thought of Chris-
tian antiquity. The diversity of Christian ideas, or of ideas closely related to Christianity,
was very great in the first centuries. For that very reason a selection was necessary; but it
was required, above all, by the aim of the work. The history of dogma has to give an account
only of those doctrines of Christian writers which were authoritative in wide circles, or
which furthered the advance of the development; otherwise it would become a collection
of monographs, and thereby lose its proper value. I have endeavoured to subordinate
everything to the aim of exhibiting the development which led to the ecclesiastical dogmas,
and therefore have neither, for example, communicated the details of the gnostic systems,
nor brought forward in detail the theological ideas of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, etc. Even
a history of Paulinism will be sought for in the book in vain. It is a task by itself, to trace the
after-effects of the theology of Paul in the post-Apostolic age. The History of Dogma can
x
only furnish fragments here; for it is not consistent with its task to give an accurate account
of the history of a theology the effects of which were at first very limited. It is certainly no
4
Prefatory Material
easy matter to determine what was authoritative in wide circles at the time when dogma
was first being developed, and I may confess that I have found the working out of the third
chapter of the first book very difficult. But I hope that the severe limitation in the material
will be of service to the subject. If the result of this limitation should be to lead students to
read connectedly the manual which has grown out of my lectures, my highest wish will be
gratified.
There can be no great objection to the appearance of a text-book on the history of dogma
at the present time. We now know in what direction we have to work; but we still want a
history of Christian theological ideas in their relation to contemporary philosophy. Above
all, we have net got an exact knowledge of the Hellenistic philosophical terminologies in
their development up to the fourth century. I have keenly felt this want, which can only be
remedied by well-directed common labour. I have made a plentiful use of the controversial
treatise of Celsus against Christianity, of which little use has hitherto been made for the
history of dogma. On the other hand, except in a few cases, I have deemed it inadmissible
to adduce parallel passages, easy to be got, from Philo, Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus
Aurelius, Porphyry, etc.; for only a comparison strictly carried out would have been of value
here. I have been able neither to borrow such from others, nor to furnish it myself. Yet I
have ventured to submit my work, because, in my opinion, it is possible to prove the depend-
ence of dogma on the Greek spirit, without being compelled to enter into a discussion of
all the details.
The Publishers of the Encyclopedia Brittannica have allowed me to print here, in a form
but slightly altered, the articles on Neoplatonism and Manichæism which I wrote for their
work, and for this I beg to thank them.
It is now eighty-three years since my grandfather, Gustav Ewers, edited in German the
xi
excellent manual on the earliest history of dogma by Münter, and thereby got his name as-
sociated with the history of the founding of the new study. May the work of the grandson
be found not unworthy of the clear and disciplined mind which presided over the beginnings
of the young science.
Giessen, 1st August, 1885.
AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xii
In the two years that have passed since the appearance of the first edition I have steadily
kept in view the improvement of this work, and have endeavoured to learn from the reviews
of it that have appeared. I owe most to the study of Weizsäcker’s work on the Apostolic Age,
and his notice of the first edition of this volume in the Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886,
No. 21. The latter, in several decisive passages concerning the general conception, drew my
attention to the fact that I had emphasised certain points too strongly, but had not given
5
Prefatory Material
due prominence to others of equal importance, while not entirely overlooking them. I have
convinced myself that these hints were, almost throughout, well founded, and have taken
pains to meet them in the new edition. I have also learned from Heinrici’s commentary on
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and from Bigg’s “Lectures on the Christian Platonists
of Alexandria.” Apart from these works there has appeared very little that could be of signi-
ficance for my historical account; but I have once more independently considered the main
problems, and in some cases, after repeated reading of the sources, checked my statements,
removed mistakes and explained what had been to briefly stated. Thus, in particular, Chapter
II. §§©1-3 of the “Presuppositions,” also the Third Chapter of the First Book (especially
Section 6), also in the Second Book, Chapter I. and Chapter II. (under B), the Third Chapter
(Supplement 3 and excursus on “Catholic and Romish”), the Fifth Chapter (under 1 and 3)
and the Sixth Chapter (under 2) have been subjected to changes and greater additions. Finally,
xiii
a new excursus has been added on the various modes of conceiving pre-existence, and in
other respects many things have been improved in detail. The size of the book has thereby
been increased by about fifty pages. As I have been misrepresented by some as one who
knew not how to appreciate the uniqueness of the Gospel history and the evangelic faith,
while others have conversely reproached me with making the history of dogma proceed
from an “apostasy” from the Gospel to Hellenism, I have taken pains to state my opinions
on both these points as clearly as possible. In doing so I have only wrought out the hints
which were given in the first edition, and which, as I supposed, were sufficient for readers.
But it is surely a reasonable desire when I request the critics in reading the paragraphs which
treat of the “Presuppositions,” not to forget how difficult the questions there dealt with are,
both in themselves and from the nature of the sources, and how exposed to criticism the
historian is who attempts to unfold his position towards them in a few pages. As is self-
evident, the centre of gravity of the book lies in that which forms its subject proper, in the
account of the origin of dogma within the Græco-Roman empire. But one should not on
that account, as many have done, pass over the beginning which lies before the beginning,
or arbitrarily adopt a starting-point of his own; for everything here depends on where and
how one begins. I have not therefore been able to follow the well-meant counsel to simply
strike out the “Presuppositions.”
I would gladly have responded to another advice to work up the notes into the text; but
I would then have been compelled to double the size of some chapters. The form of this
book, in many respects awkward, may continue as it is so long as it represents the difficulties
by which the subject is still pressed. When they have been removed—and the smallest
number of them lie in the subject matter—I will gladly break up this form of the book and
try to give it another shape. For the friendly reception given to it I have to offer my heartiest
thanks. But against those who, believing themselves in possession of a richer view of the
xiv
6
Prefatory Material
history here related, have called my conception meagre, I appeal to the beautiful words of
Tertullian: Malumus in scripturis minus, si forte, sapere quam contra.”
Marburg, 24th December, 1887.
AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. xv
In the six years that have passed since the appearance of the second edition I have con-
tinued to work at the book, and have made use of the new sources and investigations that
have appeared during this period, as well as corrected and extended my account in many
passages. Yet I have not found it necessary to make many changes in the second half of the
work. The increase of about sixty pages is almost entirely in the first half.
Berlin, 31st December, 1893.
Τὸ δόγματος ὄνομα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ
γνώμης. Ὅτι δὲ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, μαρτυρεῖ μὲν, ἱκανῶς ἡ xvi
δογματικὴ τῶν ἰατρῶν τέχνη μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν

φιλοσόφων καλούμενα δόγματα. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὰ συγκλήτῳ
δόξαντα ἔτι καὶ νῦν δόγματα συγκλήτου λέγεται, οὑδένα
ἀγνοεῖν οἶμαι.
Marcellus of Ancyra
Die Christliche Religion hat nichts in der Philosophie zu thun,

Sie ist ein mächtiges Wesen für sich, woran die gesunkene
und leidende Menschheit von Zeit zu Zeit sich immer wieder
emporgearbeitet hat; und indem man ihr diese Wirkung zuge-
steht, ist sie über aller Philosophie erhaben und bedarf von
ihr keine Stütze.
Gespräche mit Goethe von
Eckermann, Th. p. 39
CONTENTS. xvii
Page
INTRODUCTORY DIVISION
CHAPTER I.—Prolegomena to the Study of the History 1–40
§©1. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma 1–23
Definition 1
Limits and Divisions 3
7
Prefatory Material
Dogma and Theology 9

Factors in the formation of Dogma 12
Explanation as to the conception and task of the History of Dogma 13
§©2. History of the History of Dogma 23–40
The Early, the Mediæval, and the Roman Catholic Church 23
The Reformers and the 17th Century 25
Mosheim, Walch Ernesti 27
Lessing, Semler, Lange, Münscher, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meir 29
Baur, Neander, Kliefoth, Thomasius, Nitzsch, Ritschl, Renan, Loofs 37
CHAPTER II.—The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma 41–136
§©1. Introductory 41–57
The Gosppel and the Old Testament 41
The Detachment of the Christians from the Jewish Church 43
The Church and the Græco-Roman World 45
The Greek spirit an element of the Ecclesiastical Doctrine of Faith 47
The Elements connecting Primitive Christianity and the growing 50
Catholic Church xviii
The Presuppositions of the origin of the Apostolic Catholic Doctrine 57

of Faith
§©2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own Testimony concern- 58–76
ing Himself
Fundamental Features 58
Details 61
Supplements 70
Literature 75
§©3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in the first genera- 76–98
tion of believers
General Outline 76
The faith of the first Disciples 78
The beginnings of Christology 80
8
Prefatory Material
Conceptions of the Work of Jesus 83

Belief in the Resurrection 84
Righteousness and the Law 86
Paul 86
The Self-consciousness of being the Church of God 88
Supplement 1. Universalism 89
Supplement 2. Questions as to the validity of the Law; the four main 89
tendencies at the close of the Apostolic Age
Supplement 3. The Pauline Theology 92
Supplement 4. The Johannine Writings 95
Supplement 5. The Authorities in the Church 98
§©4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the Jewish hopes 99–107
of the future, in their significance for the Earliest types of Christian
preaching
The Rabbinical and Exegetical Methods 99
The Jewish Apocalyptic literature 100
Mythologies and poetical ideas, notions of pre-existence and their 102
application to Messiah
The limits of the explicable 105
Literature 107
§©5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious Philosophy of the Hel- 107–116
lenistic Jews in their significance for the later formulation of the Gospel
Spiritualising and Moralising of the Jewish Religion 107
xix
Philo 109
The Hermeneutic principles of Philo 114
§©6. The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans in the first two 116–129
centuries, and the current Græco-Roman philosophy of religion
The new religious needs and the old worship (Excursus on θεο ς 116
The System of associations, and the Empire 121
Philosophy and its acquisitions 122
9
Prefatory Material
Platonic and Stoic Elements in the philiosophy of religion 126

Greek culture and Roman ideas in the Church 127
The Empire and philosophic schools (the Cynics) 128
Literature 128
SUPPLEMENTARY.
(1) The twofold conception of the blessing of Salvation in its significance 129
for the following period
(2) Obscurity in the origin of the most important Christian ideas and Ec- 132
clesiastical forms
(3) Significance of the Pauline theology for the legitimising and reforma- 133
tion of the doctrine of the Church in the following period
DIVISION I.—The Genesis of Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic
Apostolic Dogmatic Theology, and the first Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine
BOOK I.
THE PREPARATION.
CHAPTER I.—Historical Survey 141–144

CHAPTER II.—The Element common to all Christians and the breach with 145–149
Judaism
CHAPTER III.—The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in 150–222
Gentile Christianity as it was being developed into Catholicism
(1) The Communities and the Church 150
xx
(2) The Foundation of the Faith; the Old Testament, and the traditions 155
about Jesus (sayings of Jesus, the Kerygma about Jesus), the significance
of the “Apostolic”
(3) The main articles of Christianity and the conceptions of salvation. The 163
new law. Eschatology.
(4) The Old Testament as source of the knowledge of faith 175
(5) The knowledge of God and of the world, estimate of the world (Demons) 180
(6) Faith in Jesus Christ 183
Jesus the Lord 183
10
Prefatory Material
Jesus the Christ 184

Jesus the Son of God, the Theologia Christi 186
The Adoptian and the Pneumatic Christology 190
Ideas of Christ’s work 199
(7) The Worship, the sacred actions, and the organization of the Churches 204
The Worship and Sacrifice 204
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper 207
The organization 214
SUPPLEMENTARY.
The premises of Catholicism 218

Doctrinal diversities of the Apostolic Fathers 218
CHAPTER IV.—The attempts of the Gnostics to create an Apostolic Dogmatic, 223–266
and a Christian theology; or the acute secularising of Christianity
(1) The conditions for the rise of Gnosticism 223
(2) The nature of Gnosticism 227
(3) History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared 238
(4) The most important Gnostic doctrines 253
CHAPTER V.—The attempt of Marcion to set aside the Old Testament 267–286
foundation of Christianity, to purify the tradition and reform Christendom
on the basis of the Pauline Gospel
Characterisation of Marcion’s attempt 267
xxi
(1) His estimate of the Old Testament and the god of the Jews 271
(2) The God of the Gospel 272
(3) The relation of the two Gods according to Marcion 274
The Gnostic woof in Marcion’s Christianity 275
(4) The Christology 275
(5) Eschatology and Ethics 277
(6) Criticism of the Christian tradition, the Marcionite Church 278
Remarks 282
11
Prefatory Material
CHAPTER VI.—The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the notion 287–317

Jewish Christianity
Characterisation of Marcion’s attempt 267
(1) General conditions for the development of Jewish Christianity 287
(2) Jewish Christianity and the Catholic Church, insignificance of Jewish 289
Christianity, “Judaising” in Catholicism
Alleged documents of Jewish Christianity (Apocalpse of John, Acts 295
of the Apostles, Epistle to the Hebrews, Hegesippus)
History of Jewish Christianity 296
The witness of Justin 296
The witness of Celsus 298
The witness of Irenæus and Origen 299
The witness of Eusebius and Jerome 300
The Gnostic Jewish Christianity 302
The Elkesaites and Ebionites of Epiphanius 304
Estimate of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, their 311
want of significance for the question as to the genesis of Catholicism
and its doctrine
APPENDICES.
I. On the different notions of Pre-existence 318

II. On Liturgies and the genesis of Dogma 332
III. On Neoplatonism 335
Literature 361
xxii
12
Introductory Division
PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF

THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. xxiii
II
THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE

HISTORY OF DOGMA
13
Chapter I. Prolegomena to the Discipline of the History of Dogma
CHAPTER I.
PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.

§©I. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma.
1. The History of Dogma is a discipline of general Church History, which has for its
object the dogmas of the Church. These dogmas are the doctrines of the Christian faith lo-
gically formulated and expressed for scientific and apologetic purposes, the contents of
which are a knowledge of God, of the world, and of the provisions made by God for man’s
salvation. The Christian Churches teach them as the truths revealed in Holy Scripture, the
acknowledgment of which is the condition of the salvation which religion promises. But as
the adherents of the Christian religion had not these dogmas from the beginning, so far, at
least, as they form a connected system, the business of the history of dogma is, in the first
place, to ascertain the origin of Dogmas (of Dogma), and then secondly, to describe their
development (their variations).
2. We cannot draw any hard and fast line between the time of the origin and that of the
development of dogma; they rather shade off into one another. But we shall have to look
for the final point of division at the time when an article of faith logically formulated and
scientifically expressed, was first raised to the articulus constitutivus ecclesia, and as such
was universally enforced by the Church. Now that first happened when the doctrine of
Christ, as the pre-existent and personal Logos of God, had obtained acceptance everywhere
in the confederated Churches as the revealed and fundamental doctrine of faith, that is,
about the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth. We must therefore, in our
account, take this as the final point of division.1 As to the development of dogma, it seems
2
to have closed in the Eastern Church with the seventh Œcumenical Council (787). After
1 Weizsäcker, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 823 f. says, “It is a question whether we should limit the account of the
genesis of Dogma to the Antenicene and designate all else as a development of that. This is undoubted correct
so long as our view is limited to the history of dogma of the Greek Church in the second period, and the devel-
opment of it by the Œcumenical Synods. On the other hand, the Latin Church, in its own way and in its own
province, becomes productive from the days of Augustine onwards; the formal signification of dogma in the
narrower sense becomes different in the middle ages. Both are repeated in a much greater measure through
theReformation. We may therefore in process, in opposition to that division into genesis and development, regard
the whole as a continuous process, in which the contents as well as the formal authority of dogma are in process
of continuous development.” This view is certainly just, and I think is indicated by myself in what follows. We
have to decide here, as so often elsewhere in our account, between rival points of view. The view favoured by
me has the advantage of making the nature of dogma clearly appear as a product of the mode of thought of the
early church, and that is what it has remained, in spite of all changes both in form and substance, till the present
day.
14
that time no further dogmas were set up in the East as revealed truths. As to the Western
Catholic, that is, the Romish Church, a new dogma was promulgated as late as the year 1870,
which claims to be, and in point of form really is, equal in dignity to the old dogmas. Here,
therefore, the History of Dogma must extend to the present time. Finally, as regards the
Protestant Churches, they are a subject of special difficulty in the sphere of the history of
dogma; for at the present moment there is no agreement within these Churches as to
whether, and in what sense, dogmas (as the word was used in the ancient Church) are valid.
But even if we leave the present out of account and fix our attention on the Protestant
Churches of the 16th century, the decision is difficult. For, on the one hand, the Protestant
faith, the Lutheran as well as the Reformed (and that of Luther no less), presents itself as a
doctrine of faith which, resting Catholic canon of scripture, is, in point of form, quite ana-
logous to the Catholic doctrine of faith, has a series of dogmas in common with it, and only
differs in a few. On the other hand, Protestantism has taken its stand in principle on the
Gospel exclusively, and declared its readiness at all times to test all doctrines afresh by a
true understanding of the Gospel. The Reformers, however, in addition to this, began to
3
unfold a conception of Christianity which might be described, in contrast with the Catholic
type of religion, as a new conception, and which indeed draws support from the old dogmas,
but changes their original significance materially and formally. What this conception was
may still be ascertained from those writings received by the Church, the Protestant symbols
of the 16th century, in which the larger part of the traditionary dogmas are recognised as
the appropriate expression of the Christian religion, nay, as the Christian religion itself.2
Accordingly, it can neither be maintained that the expression of the Christian faith in the
form of dogmas is abolished in the Protestant Churches—the very acceptance of the Cath-
olic canon as the revealed record of faith is opposed to that view—nor that its meaning has
remained absolutely unchanged.3 The history of dogma has simply to recognise this state
of things, and to represent it exactly as it lies before us in the documents.
But the point to which the historian should advance here still remains an open question.
If we adhere strictly to the definition of the idea of dogma given above, this much is certain,
2 See Kattenbusch. Luther’s Stellung zu den ökumenischen Symbolen, 1883.

3 See Ritschl. Geschichte des Pietismus, I. p. 80 ff.: 93 ff., II. p. 60 f.: 88 f. “The Lutheran view of life did not
remain pure and undefiled, but was limited and obscured by the preponderance of dogmatic interests. Protest-
antism was not delivered from the womb of the Western Church of the middle ages in full power and equipment,
like Athene from the head of Jupiter. The incompleteness of its ethical view, the splitting up of its general con-
ceptions into a series of particular dogmas, the tendency to express its beliefs as a hard and fast whole, are defects
which soon made Protestantism appear to disadvantage in comparison with the wealth of mediæval theology
and asceticism. . . The scholastic form of pure doctrine is really only the provisional, and not the final form of
Protestantism.”
15
that dogmas were no longer set up after the Formula of Concord, or in the case of the Re-
formed Church, after the decrees of the Synod of Dort. It cannot, however, be maintained
that they have been set aside in the centuries that have passed since then; for apart from
some Protestant National and independent Churches, which are too insignificant and whose
future is too uncertain to be taken into account here, the ecclesiastical tradition of the 16th
4
century, and along it the tradition of the early Church, have not been abrogated in author-
itative form. Of course, changes of the greatest importance with regard to doctrine have
appeared everywhere in Protestantism from the 17th century to the present day. But these
changes cannot in any sense be taken into account in a history of dogma, because they have
not as yet attained a form valid for the Church. However we may changes, whether we regard
them as corruptions or improvements, or explain the want of fixity in which the Protestant
Churches find themselves, as a situation that is forced on them, or the situation that is
agreeable to them and for which they are adapted, in no sense is there here a development
which could be described as history of dogma.
These facts would seem to justify those who, like Thomasius and Schmid, carry the
history of dogma in Protestantism to the Formula of Concord, or, in the case of the Reformed
Church, to the decrees of the Synod of Dort. But it may be objected to this boundary line;
(1) That those symbols have at all times attained only a partial authority in Protestantism;
(2) That as noted above, the dogmas, that is, the formulated doctrines of faith have different
meanings on different matters in the Protestant and in the Catholic Churches. Accordingly,
it seems advisable within the frame-work of the history of dogma, to examine Protestantism
only so far as this is necessary for obtaining a knowledge of its deviations from the Catholic
dogma materially and formally, that is, to ascertain the original position of the Reformers
with regard to the doctrine of the Church, a position which is beset with contradictions.
The more accurately we determine the relation of the Reformers to Catholicism, the more
intelligible will be the developments which Protestantism has passed through in the course
of its history. But these developments themselves (retrocession and advance) do not belong
to the sphere of the history of dogma, because they stand in no comparable relation to the
course of the history of dogma within the Catholic Church. As history of Protestant doctrines
they form a peculiar independent province of Church history.
As to the division of the history of dogma, it consists of two main parts. The first has
5
to describe the origin of dogma, that is, of the Apostolic Catholic system of doctrine based
on the foundation of the tradition authoritatively embodied in the creeds and Holy Scripture,
and extends to the beginning of the fourth century. This may be conveniently divided into
two parts, the first of which will treat of the preparation, the second of the establishment of
the ecclesiastical doctrine of faith. The second main part, which has to portray the develop-
ment of dogma, comprehends three stages. In the first stage the doctrine of faith appears as
Theology and Christology. The Eastern Church has never got beyond this stage, although
16
it has to a large extent enriched dogma ritually and mystically (see the decrees of the seventh
council). We will have to shew how the doctrines of faith formed in this stage have remained
for all time in the Church dogmas κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. The second stage was initiated by Augustine.
The doctrine of faith appears here on the one side completed, and on the other re-expressed
by new dogmas, which treat of the relation of sin and grace, freedom and grace, grace and
the means of grace. The number and importance of the dogmas that were, in the middle
ages, really fixed after Augustine’s time, had no relation to the range and importance of the
questions which they raised, and which emerged in the course of centuries in consequence
of advancing knowledge, and not less in consequence of the growing power of the Church.
Accordingly, in this second stage which comprehends the whole of the middle ages, the
Church as an institution kept believers together in a larger measure than was possible to
dogmas. These in their accepted form were too poor to enable them to be the expression of
religious conviction and the regulator of Church life. On the other hand, the new decisions
of Theologians, Councils and Popes, did not yet possess the authority which could have
made them incontestable truths of faith. The third stage begins with the Reformation, which
compelled the Church to fix its faith on the basis of the theological work of the middle ages.
Thus arose the Catholic dogma which has found in the Vatican decrees its provisional set-
tlement. This Roman Catholic dogma, as it was formulated at Trent, was moulded in express
6
opposition to the Theses of the Reformers. But these Theses themselves represent a peculiar
conception of Christianity, which has its root in the theology of Paul and Augustine, and
includes either explicitly or implicitly a revision of the whole ecclesiastical tradition, and
therefore of dogma also. The History of Dogma in this last stage, therefore, has a twofold
task. It has, on the one hand, to present the Romish dogma as a product of the ecclesiastical
development of the middle ages under the influence of the Reformation faith which was to
be rejected, and on the other hand, to portray the conservative new formation which we
have in original Protestantism, and determine its relation to dogma. A closer examination,
however, shews that in none of the great confessions does religion live in dogma, as of old.
Dogma everywhere has fallen into the background; in the Eastern Church it has given place
to ritual, in the Roman Church to ecclesiastical instructions, in the Protestant Churches, so
far as they are mindful of their origin, to the Gospel. At the same time, however, the para-
doxical fact is unmistakable that dogma as such is nowhere at this moment so powerful as
in the Protestant Churches, though by their history they are furthest removed from it. Here,
however, it comes into consideration as an object of immediate religious interest, which,
strictly speaking, in the Catholic Church is not the case.4 The Council of Trent was simply
4 It is very evident how the mediæval and old catholic dogmas were transformed in the view which Luther
originally took of them. In this view we must remember that he did away with all the presuppositions of dogma,
the infallible Apostolic Canon of Scripture, the infallible teaching function of the Church, and the infallible
Apostolic doctrine and constitution. On this basis dogmas can only be utterances which do not support faith,
17
wrung from the Romish Church, and she has made the dogmas of that council in a certain
sense innocuous by the Vatican decrees.5 In this sense, it may be said that the period of de-
but are supposed by it. But, on the other hand his opposition to all the Apocryphal saints which the Church has
created, compelled him to emphasise faith alone, and to give it a firm basis in Scripture, in order to free it from
the burden of tradition. Here then, very soon, first by Melanchthon, a summary of articuli fide was substituted
for the faith, and the Scriptures recovered their place as a rule. Luther himself, however, is responsible for both,
and so it came about that very soon the new evangelic standpoint was explained almost exclusively by the “ab-
olition of abuses,” and by no means so surely by the transformation of the whole doctrinal tradition. The classic
authority for this is the Augsburg confession (“hæc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil
inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana . . . . sed dissensio est de
quibusdam abusibus”). The purified catholic doctrine has since then become the palladium of the Reformation
Churches. The refuters of the Augustana have justly been unwilling to admit the mere “purifying,” but have
noted in addition that the Augustana does not say everything that was urged by Luther and the Doctors (see
Ficker, Die Konfutation des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisse, 1891). At the same time, however, the Lutheran
Church, though not so strongly as the English, retained the consciousness of being the true Catholics. But, as
the history of Protestantism proves, the original impulse has not remained inoperative. Though Luther himself
all his life measured his personal Christian standing by an entirely different standard than subjection to a law
of faith; yet, however presumptous the words may sound, we might say that in the complicated struggle that
was forced on him, he did not always clearly understand his own faith.
5 In the modern Romish Church, dogma is, above all, a judicial regulation which one has to submit to, and
in certain circumstances submission alone is sufficient, fides implicita. Dogma is thereby just as much deprived
of its original sense and its original authority as by the demand of the Reformers, that every thing should be
based upon a clear understanding of the Gospel. Moreover, the changed position of the Romish Church towards
dogma is also shewn by the fact that it no longer gives a plain answer to the question as to what dogma is. Instead
of a series of dogmas definitely defined, and of equal value, there is presented an infinite multitude of whole
and half dogmas, doctrinal directions, pious opinions, probable theological propositions, etc. It is often a very
difficult question whether a solemn decision has or has not already been taken on this or that statement, or
whether such a decision is still necessary. Everything that must be believed is nowhere stated, and so one
sometimes hears in Catholic circles the exemplary piety of a cleric praised with the words that “he believes more
than is necessary.” The great dogmatic conflicts within the Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent, have
been silenced by arbitrary Papal pronouncements and doctrinal directions. Since one has simply to accommodate
oneself to these as laws, it once more appears clear that dogma has become a judicial regulation, administered
by the Pope, which is carried out in an administrative way and loses itself in an endless casuistry. We do not
mean by this to deny that dogma has a decided value for the pious Catholic as a summary of the faith. But in
the Catholic Church it is no longer piety, but obedience that is decisive. The solidarity with the orthodox Prot-
18
velopment of dogma is altogether closed, and that therefore our discipline requires a state-
ment such as belongs to a series of historical phenomena that has been completed.
3. The Church has recognised her faith, that is religion itself, in her dogmas. Accordingly,
8
one very important business of the History of Dogma is to exhibit the unity that exists in
the dogmas of a definite period, and to shew how the several dogmas are connected with
one another and what leading ideas they express. But, as a matter of course, this undertaking
has its limits in the degree of unanimity which actually existed in the dogmas of the partic-
ular period. It may be shewn without much difficulty, that a strict though by no means ab-
solute unanimity is expressed only in the dogmas of the Greek Church. The peculiar char-
acter of the western post-Augustinian ecclesiastical conception of Christianity, no longer
finds a clear expression in dogma, and still less is this the case with the conception of the
Reformers. The reason of this is that Augustine, as well as Luther, disclosed a new conception
of Christianity, but at the same time appropriated the old dogmas.6 But neither Baur’s nor
Kliefoth’s method of writing the history of dogmas has done justice to this fact. Not Baur’s,
because, notwithstanding the division into six periods, it sees a uniform process in the de-
velopment of dogma, a process which begins with the origin of Christianity and has run its
course, as is alleged, in a strictly logical way. Not Kliefoth’s, because, in the dogmas of the
Catholic Church which the East has never got beyond, it only ascertains the establishment
of one portion of the Christian faith, to which the parts still wanting have been successively
added in later times.7 In contrast with this, we may refer to the fact that we can clearly dis-
tinguish three styles of building in the history of dogma, but only three; the style of Origen,
that of Augustine, and that of the Reformers. But the dogma of the post-Augustinian Church,
as well as that of Luther, does not in any way represent itself as a new building, not even as
the mere extension of an old building, but as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in
harmony with former styles, because neither Augustine nor Luther ever dreamed of building
independently.8 This perception leads us to the most peculiar phenomenon which meets 9
the historian of dogma, and which must determine his method.
estants may be explained by political reasons, in order, from political reasons again, to condemn, where it is
necessary, all Protestants as heretics and revolutionaries.
6 See the discussions of Biedermann (Christliche Dogmatik. 2 Ed. p. 150 f.) about what he calls the law of
stability in the history of religion.
7 See Ritschl’s discussion of the methods of the early histories of dogma in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie,
1871, p. 181 ff.
8 In Catholicism, the impulse which proceeded from Augustine has finally proved powerless to break the
traditional conception of Christianity, as the Council of Trent and the decrees of the Vatican have shewn. For
that very reason the development of the Roman Catholic Church doctrine belongs to the history of dogma.
Protestantism must, however, under all circumstances be recognised as a new thing, which indeed in none of
its phases has been free from contradictions.
19
Dogmas arise, develop themselves and are made serviceable to new aims; this in all cases
takes place through Theology. But Theology is dependent on innumerable factors, above
all on the spirit of the time; for it lies in the nature of theology that it desires to make its
object intelligible. Dogmas are the product of theology, not inversely; of a theology of course
which, as a rule, was in correspondence with the faith of the time. The critical view of history
teaches this: first we have the Apologists and Origen, then the councils of Nice and
Chalcedon; first the Scholastics, and the Council of Trent. In consequence of this, dogma
bears the mark of all the factors on which the theology was dependent. That is one point.
But the moment in which the product of theology became dogma, the way which led to it
must be obscured; for, according to the conception of the Church, dogma can be nothing
else than the revealed faith itself. Dogma is regarded not as the exponent, but as the basis
of theology, and there-fore the product of theology having passed into dogma limits, and
criticises the work of theology both past and future.9 That is the second point. It follows
from this that the history of the Christian religion embraces a very complicated relation of
ecclesiastical dogma and theology, and that the ecclesiastical conception of the significance
of theology cannot at all do justice to this significance. The ecclesiastical scheme which is
here formed and which denotes the utmost concession that can be made to history, is to the
10
effect that theology gives expression only to the form of dogma, while so far as it is ecclesi-
astical theology, it presupposes the unchanging dogma, i.e., the substance of dogma. But
this scheme, which must always leave uncertain what the form really is, and what the sub-
stance, is in no way applicable to the actual circumstances. So far, however, as it is itself an
article of faith it is an object of the history of dogma. Ecclesiastical dogma when put on its
defence must at all times take up an ambiguous position towards theology, and ecclesiastical
theology a corresponding position towards dogma; for they are condemned to perpetual
uncertainty as to what they owe each other, and what they have to fear from each other. The
theological Fathers of dogma have almost without exception failed to escape being con-
demned by dogma, either because it went beyond them, or lagged behind their theology.
The Apologist, Origen and Augustine may be cited in support of this; and even in Protest-
antism, mutatis mutandis, the same of thing has been repeated, as is proved by the fate of
Melanchthon and Schleiermacher. On the other hand, there have been few theologians who
have not shaken some article of the traditional dogma. We are wont to get rid of these fun-
damental facts by hypostatising the ecclesiastical principle or the common ecclesiastical
spirit, and by this normal hypostasis, measuring, approving or condemning the doctrines
of the theologians, unconcerned about the actual conditions and frequently following a
9 Here then begins the ecclesiastical theology which takes as its starting-point the finished dogma it strives to
prove or harmonise, but very soon, as experience has shewn, loses its firm footing in such efforts and so occasions
new crises.
20
hysteron-proteron. But this is a view of history which should in justice be left to the Catholic
Church, which indeed cannot dispense with it. The critical history of dogma has, on the
contrary, to shew above all how an ecclesiastical theology has arisen; for it can only give
account of the origin of dogma in connection with this main question. The horizon must
be taken here as wide as possible; for the question as to the origin of theology can only be
answered by surveying all the relations into which the Christian religion has entered in
naturalising itself in the world and subduing it. When ecclesiastical dogma has once been
created and recognised as an immediate expression of the Christian religion, the history of
11
dogma has only to take the history of theology into account so far as it has been active in
the formation of dogma. Yet it must always keep in view the peculiar claim of dogma to be
a criterion and not a product of theology. But it will also be able to shew how, partly by
means of theology and partly by other means—for dogma is also dependent on ritual, con-
stitution, and the practical ideals of life, as well as on the letter, whether of Scripture, or of
tradition no longer understood—dogma in its development and re-expression has continually
changed, according to the conditions under which the Church was placed. If dogma is ori-
ginally the formulation of Christian faith as Greek culture understood it and justified it to
itself, then dogma has never indeed lost this character, though it has been radically modified
in later times. It is quite as important to keep in view the tenacity of dogma as its changes,
and in this respect the Protestant way of writing history, which, here as elsewhere in the
history of the Church, is more disposed to attend to differences than to what is permanent,
has much to learn from the Catholic. But as the Protestant historian, as far as possible, judges
of the progress of development in so far as it agrees with the Gospel in its documentary
form, he is still able to shew, with all deference to that tenacity, that dogma has been so
modified and used to the best advantage by Augustine and Luther, that its Christian character
has in many respects gained, though in other respects it has become further and further
alienated from that character. In proportion as the traditional system of dogmas lost its
stringency it became richer. In proportion as it was stripped by Augustine and Luther of its
apologetic philosophic tendency, it was more and more filled with Biblical ideas, though,
on the other hand, it became more full of contradictions and less impressive.
This outlook, however, has already gone beyond the limits fixed for these introductory
paragraphs and must not be pursued further. To treat in abstracto of the method of the
history of dogma in relation to the discovery, grouping, and interpretation of the material
is not to be recommended; for general rules to preserve the ignorant and half instructed
12
from overlooking the important, and laying hold of what is not important, cannot be laid
down. Certainly everything depends on the arrangement of the material; for the understand-
ing of history is to find the rules according to which the phenomena should be grouped,
and every advance in the knowledge of history is inseparable from an accurate observance
of these rules. We must, above all, be on our guard against preferring one principle at the
21
expense of another in the interpretation of the origin and aim of particular dogmas. The
most diverse factors have at all times been at work in the formation of dogmas. Next to the
effort to determine the doctrine of religion according to the finis religionis, the blessing of
salvation, the following may have been the most important. (1) The conceptions and sayings
contained in the canonical Scriptures. (2) The doctrinal tradition originating in earlier
epochs of the Church, and no longer understood. (3) The needs of worship and organisation.
(4) The effort to adjust the doctrine of religion to the prevailing doctrinal opinions. (5)
Political and social circumstances. (6) The changing moral ideals of life. (7) The so-called
logical consistency, that is the abstract analogical treatment of one dogma according to the
form of another. (8) The effort to adjust different tendencies and contradictions in the
Church. (9) The endeavour to reject once for all a doctrine regarded as erroneous. (10) The
sanctifying power of blind custom. The method of explaining everything wherever possible
by “the impulse of dogma to unfold itself,” must be given up as unscientific, just as all empty
abstractions whatsoever must be given up as scholastic and mythological. Dogma has had
its history in the individual living man and nowhere else. As soon as one adopts this statement
in real earnest, that mediæval realism must vanish to which a man so often thinks himself
superior while imbedded in it all the time. Instead of investigating the actual conditions in
which believing and intelligent men have been placed, a system of Christianity has been
constructed from which, as from a Pandora’s box, all doctrines which in course of time have
been formed, are extracted, and in this way legitimised as Christian. The simple fundamental
13
proposition that that only is Christian which can be established authoritatively by the Gospel,
has never yet received justice in the history of dogma. Even the following account will in all
probability come short in this point; for in face of a prevailing false tradition the application
of a simple principle to every detail can hardly succeed at the first attempt.
Explanation as to the Conception and Task of the History of Dogma.
No agreement as yet prevails with regard to the conception of the history of dogma.
Münscher (Handbuch der Christl. D. G. 3rd ed. I. p. 3 f.) declared that the business of the
history of dogma is “To represent all the changes which the theoretic part of the Christian
doctrine of religion has gone through from its origin up to the present, both in form and
substance,” and this definition held sway for a long time. Then it came to be noted that the
question was not about changes that were accidental, but about those that were historically
necessary, that dogma has a relation to the Church, and that it represents a rational expression
of the faith. Emphasis was put sometimes on one of these elements and sometimes on the
other. Baur, in particular, insisted on the first; V. Hofmann, after the example of Schleier-
macher, on the second, and indeed exclusively (Encyklop. der theol. p. 257 f.: “The history
of dogma is the history of the Church confessing the faith in words”). Nitzsch (Grundriss
der Christl. D. G. I. p. I) insisted on the third: “The history of dogma is the scientific account
of the origin and development of the Christian system of doctrine or that part of historical
22
theology which presents the history of the expression of the Christian faith in notions,
doctrines and doctrinal systems.” Thomasius has combined the second and third by con-
ceiving the history of dogma as the history of the development of the ecclesiastical system
of doctrine. But even this conception is not sufficiently definite, inasmuch as it fails to do
complete justice to the special peculiarity of the subject.
Ancient and modern usage does certainly seem to allow the word dogma to be applied
14
to particular doctrines, or to a uniform system of doctrine, to fundamental truths, or to
opinions, to theoretical propositions or practical rules, to statements of belief that have not
been reached by a process of reasoning, as well as to those that bear the marks of such a
process. But this uncertainty vanishes on closer examination. We then see that there is always
an authority at the basis of dogma, which gives it to those who recognise that authority the
signification of a fundamental truth “quæ sine scelere prodi non poterit” (Cicero Quæst.
Acad. IV. 9). But therewith at the same time is introduced into the idea of dogma a social
element (see Biedermann, Christl. Dogmatik. 2 Edit. I. p. 2 f.); the confessors of one and the
same dogma form a community.
There can be no doubt that these two elements are also demonstrable in Christian
dogma, and therefore we must reject all definitions of the history of dogma which do not
take them into account. If we define it as the history of the understanding of Christianity
by itself, or as the history of the changes of the theoretic part of the doctrine of religion or
the like, we shall fail to do justice to the idea of dogma in its most general acceptation. We
cannot describe as dogmas, doctrines such as the Apokatastasis, or the Kenosis of the Son
of God, without coming into conflict with the ordinary usage of language and with ecclesi-
astical law.
If we start, therefore, from the supposition that Christian dogma is an ecclesiastical
doctrine which presupposes revelation as its authority, and therefore claims to be strictly
binding, we shall fail to bring out its real nature with anything like completeness. That which
Protestants and Catholics call dogmas, are not only ecclesiastical doctrines, but they are
also: (1) theses expressed in abstract terms, forming together a unity, and fixing the contents
of the Christian religion as a knowledge of God, of the world, and of the sacred history under
the aspect of a proof of the truth. But (2) they have also emerged at a definite stage of the
history of the Christian religion; they shew in their conception as such, and in many details,
the influence of that stage, viz., the Greek period, and they have preserved this character in
15
spite of all their reconstructions and additions in after periods. This view of dogma Cannot
be shaken by the fact that particular historical facts, Miraculous or not miraculous are de-
scribed as dogmas; for here they are regarded as such only in so far as they have got the
value of doctrines which have been inserted in the complete structure of doctrines and are,
on the other hand, members of a chain of proofs, viz., proofs from prophecy.
23
But as soon as we perceive this, the parallel between the ecclesiastical dogmas and those
of ancient schools of philosophy appears to be in point of form complete. The only difference
is that revelation is here put as authority in the place of human knowledge, although the
later philosophic schools appealed to revelation also. The theoretical as well as the practical
doctrines which embraced the peculiar conception of the world and the ethics of the school,
together with their rationale, were described in these schools as dogmas. Now, in so far as
the adherents of the Christian religion possess dogmas in this sense, and form a community
which has gained an understanding of its religious faith by analysis and by scientific definition
and grounding, they appear as a great philosophic school in the ancient sense of the word.
But they differ from such a school in so far as they have always eliminated the process of
thought which has led to the dogma, looking upon the whole system of dogma as a revelation
and there-fore, even in respect of the reception of the dogma, at least at first, they have taken
account not of the powers of human understanding, but of the Divine enlightenment which
is bestowed on all the willing and the virtuous. In later times, indeed, the analogy was far
more complete, in so far as the Church reserved the full possession of dogma to a circle of
consecrated and initiated individuals. Dogmatic Christianity is therefore a definite stage in
the history of the development of Christianity. It corresponds to the antique mode of thought,
but has nevertheless continued to a very great extent in the following epochs, though subject
to great transformations. Dogmatic Christianity stands between Christianity as the religion
of the Gospel, presupposing a personal experience and dealing with disposition and conduct,
16
and Christianity as a religion of cultus, sacraments, ceremonial and obedience, in short of
superstition, and it can be united with either the one or the other. In itself and in spite of
all its mysteries it is always intellectual Christianity, and therefore there is always the danger
here that as knowledge it may supplant religious faith, or connect it with a doctrine of reli-
gion, instead of with God and a living experience.
If then the discipline of the history of dogma is to be what its name purports, its object
is the very dogma which is so formed, and its fundamental problem will be to discover how
it has arisen. In the history of the canon our method of procedure has for long been to ask
first of all, how the canon originated, and then to examine the changes through which it has
passed. We must proceed in the same way with the history of dogma, of which the history
of the canon is simply a part. Two objections will be raised against this. In the first place, it
will be said that from the very first the Christian religion has included a definite religious
faith as well as a definite ethic, and that therefore Christian dogma is as original as Chris-
tianity itself, so that there can be no question about a genesis, but only as to a development
or alteration of dogma within the Church. Again it will be said, in the second place, that
dogma as defined above, has validity only for a definite epoch in the history of the Church,
and that it is therefore quite impossible to write a comprehensive history of dogma in the
sense we have indicated.
24
As to the first objection, there can of course be no doubt that the Christian religion is
founded on a message, the contents of which are a definite belief in God and in Jesus Christ
whom he has sent, and that the promise of salvation is attached to this belief. But faith in
the Gospel and the later dogmas of the Church are not related to each other as theme and
the way in which it is worked out, any more than the dogma of the New Testament canon
is only the explication of the original reliance of Christians on the word of their Lord and
the continuous working of the Spirit; but in these later dogmas an entirely new element has
entered into the Conception of religion. The message of religion appears here Clothed in a
17
knowledge of the world and of the ground of the World which had already been obtained
without any reference to it, and therefore religion itself has here become a doctrine Which
has, indeed, its certainty in the Gospel, but only in part derives its contents from it, and
which can also be appropriated by such as are neither poor in spirit nor weary itnd heavy
laden. Now, it may of course be shewn that a philosophic conception of the Christian religion
is possible, Ind began to make its appearance from the very first, as in the case of Paul. But
the Pauline gnosis has neither been simply identified with the Gospel by Paul himself (I
Cor. III. 2 f.: XII. 3: Phil. I. 18) nor is it analogous to the later dogma, not to speak of being
identical with it. The characteristic of this dogma is that it represents itself in no sense as
foolishness, but as wisdom, and at the same time desires to be regarded as the contents of
revelation itself. Dogma in its conception and development is a work of the Greek spirit on
the soil of the Gospel. By comprehending in itself and giving excellent expression to the re-
ligious conceptions contained in Greek philosophy and the Gospel, together with its Old
Testament basis; by meeting the search for a revelation as well as the desire for a universal
knowledge; by subordinating itself to the aim of the Christian religion to bring a Divine life
to humanity as well as to the aim of philosophy to know the world: it became the instrument
by which the Church conquered the ancient world and educated the modern nations. But
this dogma—one cannot but admire its formation or fail to regard it as a great achievement
of the spirit, which never again in the history of Christianity has made itself at home with
such freedom and boldness in religion—is the product of a comparatively long history which
needs to be deciphered; for it is obscured by the completed dogma. The Gospel itself is not
dogma, for belief in the Gospel provides room for knowledge only so far as it is a state of
feeling and course of action, that is a definite form of life. Between practicl faith in the
Gospel and the historico-critical account of the Christian religion and its history, a third
element can no longer be thrust in without its coming into conflict with faith, or with the
18
historical data--the only thing left is the practical task of defending the faith. But a third
element has been thrust into the history of this religion, viz., dogma, that is, the philosoph-
ical means which were used in early times for the purpose of making the Gospel intelligible
have been fused with the contents of the Gospel and raised to dogma. This dogma, next to
the Church, has become a real world power, the pivot in the history of the Christian religion.
25
The transformation of the Christian faith into dogma is indeed no accident, but has its
reason is in spiritual character of the Christian religion, which at all times will feel the need
of a scientific apologetic.10 But the question here is not as to something indefinite and gen-
eral, but as to the definite dogma formed in the first centuries, and binding even yet.
This already touches on the second objection which was raised above, that dogma, in
the given sense of the word, was too narrowly conceived, and could not in this conception
be applied throughout the whole history of the Church. This objection would only be justified,
if our task were to carry the history of the development of dogma through the whole history
of the Church. But the question is just whether we are right in proposing such a task. The
Greek Church has no history of dogma after the seven great Councils, and it is incomparably
more important to recognise this fact than to register the theologoumena which were later
on introduced by Individual Bishops and scholars in the East, who were partly Influenced
by the West. Roman Catholicism in its dogmas, though, as noted above, these at present do
19
not very clearly characterise it, is to-day essentially—that is, so far as it is religion—what it
was 1500 years ago, viz., Christianity as Understood by the ancient world. The changes
which dogma has experienced in the course of its development in western Catholicism are
certainly deep and radical: they have, in point of fact, as has been indicated in the text above,
modified the position of the Church towards Christianity as dogma. But as the Catholic
Church herself maintains that she adheres to Christianity in the old dogmatic sense, this
claim of hers cannot be contested. She has embraced new things and changed her relations
to the old, but still preserved the old. But she has further developed new dogmas according
to the scheme of the old. The decrees of Trent and of the Vatican are formally analogous to
the old dogmas. Here, then, a history of dogma may really be carried forward to the present
day without thereby shewing that the definition of dogma given above is too narrow to
embrace the new doctrines. Finally, as to Protestantism, it has been briefly explained above
why the changes in Protestant systems of doctrine are not to be taken up into the history of
dogma. Strictly speaking, dogma, as dogma, has had no development in Protestantism,
inasmuch as a secret note of interrogation has been here associated with it from the very
beginning. But the old dogma has continued to be a power in it, because of its tendency to
10 Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, Vol. I. p. 123. “Christianity as religion is absolutely inconceivable without
theology; first of all, for the same reasons which called forth the Pauline theology. As a religion it cannot be
separated from the religion of its founder, hence not from historical knowledge. And as Monotheism and belief
in a world purpose, it is the religion of reason with the inextinguishable impulse of thought. The first gentile
Christians therewith gained the proud consciousness of a gnosis.” But of ecclesiastical Christianity which rests
on dogma ready made, as produced by an earlier epoch, this conception holds good only in a very qualified way;
and of the vigorous Christian piety of the earliest and of every period, it may also be said that it no less feels the
impulse to think against reason than with reason.
26
look back and to seek for authorities in the past, and partly in the original unmodified form.
The dogmas of the fourth and fifth centuries have more influence to-day in wide circles of
Protestant Churches than all the doctrines which are concentrated around justification by
faith. Deviations from the latter are borne comparatively easy, while as a rule, deviations
from the former are followed by notice to quit the Christian communion, that is, by excom-
munication. The historian of to-day would have no difficulty in answering the question
whether the power of Protestantism as a Church lies at present in the elements which it has
in common with the old dogmatic Christianity, or in that by which it is distinguished from
it. Dogma, that is to say, that type of Christianity which was formed in ecclesiastical antiquity,
20
has not been suppressed even in Protestant Churches, has really not been modified or re-
placed by a new conception of the Gospel. But, on the other hand, who could deny that the
Reformation began to disclose such a conception, and that this new conception was related
in a very different way to the traditional dogma from that of the new propositions of Au-
gustine to the dogmas handed down to him? Who could further call in question that, in
consequence of the reforming impulse in Protestantism, the way was opened up for a con-
ception which does not identify Gospel and dogma, which does not disfigure the latter by
changing or paring down its meaning while failing to come up to the former? But the histor-
ian who has to describe the formation and changes of dogma can take no part in these de-
velopments. It is a task by itself more rich and comprehensive than that of the historian of
dogma, to portray the diverse conceptions that have been formed of the Christian religion,
to portray how strong men and weak men, great and little minds have explained the Gospel
outside and inside the frame-work of dogma, and how under the cloak, or in the province
of dogma, the Gospel has had its own peculiar history. But the more limited theme must
not be put aside. For it can in no way be conducive to historical knowledge to regard as in-
different the peculiar character of the expression of Christian faith as dogma, and allow the
history of dogma to be absorbed in a general history of the various conceptions of Christian-
ity. Such a “liberal” view would not agree either with the teaching of history or with the ac-
tual situation of the Protestant Churches of the present day: for it is, above all, of crucial
importance to perceive that it is a peculiar stage in the development of the human spirit
which is described by dogma. On this stage, parallel with dogma and inwardly united with
it, stands a definite psychology, metaphysic and natural philosophy, as well as a view of
history of a definite type. This is the conception of the world obtained by antiquity after al-
most a thousand years’ labour, and it is the same connection of theoretic perceptions and
practical ideals which it accomplished. This stage on which the Christian religion has also
entered we have in no way as yet transcended, though science has raised itself above it.11 21
11 In this sense it is correct to class dogmatic theology as historical theology, as Schleiermacher has done. If
we, maintain that for practical reasons it must be taken out of the province of historical theology, then we must
make it part of practical theology. By dogmatic theology here, we understand the exposition of Christianity in
27
But the Christian religion, as it was not born of the culture of the ancient world, is not for
ever chained to it. The form and the new contents which the Gospel received when it entered
into that world have only the same guarantee of endurance as that world itself. And that
endurance is limited. We must indeed be on our guard against taking episodes for decisive
crises. But every episode carries us forward, and retrogressions are unable to undo that
progress. The Gospel since the Reformation, in spite of retrograde movements which have
not been wanting, is working itself out of the forms which it was once compelled to assume,
and a true comprehension of its history will also contribute to hasten this process.
1. The definition given above, p. 17: “Dogma in its conception and development is a
work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel,” has frequently been distorted by my
critics, as they have suppressed the words “on the soil of the Gospel.” But these words are
decisive. The foolishness of identifying dogma and Greek philosophy never entered my
mind; on the contrary, the peculiarity of ecclesiastical dogma seemed to me to lie in the very
fact that, on the one hand, it gave expression to Christian Monotheism and the central sig-
nificance of the person of Christ, and, on the other hand, comprehended this religious faith
and the historical knowledge connected with it in a philosophic system. I have given quite
as little ground for the accusation that I look upon the whole development of the history of
dogma as a pathological process within the history of the Gospel. I do not even look upon
22
the history of the origin of the Papacy as such a process, not to speak of the history of dogma.
But the perception that “everything must happen as it has happened” does not absolve the
historian from the task of ascertaining the powers which have formed the history, and dis-
tinguishing between original and later, permanent and transitory, nor from the duty of
stating his own opinion.
2. Sabatier has published a thoughtful treatise on “Christian Dogma: its Nature and its
Development,” I agree with the author in this, that in dogma—rightly understood—two
elements are to be distinguished, the religious proceeding from the experience of the indi-
vidual or from the religious spirit of the Church, and the intellectual or theoretic. But I regard
as false the statement which he makes, that the intellectual element in dogma is only the
symbolical expression of religious experience. The intellectual element is itself again to be
differentiated. On the one hand, it certainly is the attempt to give expression to religious
feeling, and so far is symbolical; but, on the other hand, within the Christian religion it be-
longs to the essence of the thing itself, inasmuch as this not only awakens feeling, but has a
quite definite content which determines and should determine the feeling. In this sense
the form of Church doctrine, as it has been shaped since the second century. As distinguished from it, a branch
of theological study must be conceived which harmonises the historical exposition of the Gospel with the gen-
eral state of knowledge of the time. The Church can as little dispense with such a discipline as there can be a
Christianity which does not account to itself for its basis and spiritual contents.
28
Christianity without dogma, that is, without a clear expression of its content, is inconceivable.
But that does not justify the unchangeable permanent significance of that dogma which has
once been formed under definite historical conditions.
3. The word “dogmas” (Christian dogmas) is, if I see correctly, used among us in three
different senses, and hence spring all manner of misconceptions and errors. By dogmas are
denoted: (1) The historical doctrines of the Church. (2) The historical facts on which the
Christian religion is reputedly or actually founded. (3) Every definite exposition of the
contents of Christianity is described as dogmatic. In contrast with this the attempt has been
made in the following presentation to use dogma only in the sense first stated. When I speak,
therefore, of the decomposition of dogma, I mean by that, neither the historical facts which
really establish the Christian religion, nor do I call in question the necessity for the Christian
23
and the Church to have a creed. My criticism refers not to the general genus dogma, but to
the species, viz., the defined dogma, as it was formed on the soil of the ancient world, and
is still a power, though under modifications.
§©2. History of the History of Dogma.
The history of dogma as a historical and critical discipline had its origin in the last
century through the works of Mosheim, C. W. F. Walch, Ernesti, Lessing and Semler. Lange
gave to the world in 1796 the first attempt at a history of dogma as a special branch of
theological study. The theologians of the Early and Mediaeval Churches have only transmitted
histories of Heretics and of Literature, regarding dogma as unchangeable.12 This presuppos-
ition is so much a part of the nature of Catholicism that it has been maintained till the
present day. It is there-fore impossible for a Catholic to make a free, impartial and scientific
investigation of the history of dogma.13 There have, indeed, at almost all times before the
Reformation, been critical efforts in the domain of Christianity, especially of western
Christianity, efforts which in some cases have led to the proof of the novelty and inadmiss-
ibility of particular dogmas. But, as a rule, these efforts were of the nature of a polemic
against the dominant Church. They scarcely prepared the way for, far less produced a his-
24
12 See Eusebius’ preface to his Church History. Eusebius in this work set himself a comprehensive task, but
in doing so he never in the remotest sense thought of a history of dogma. In place of that we have a history of
men “who from generation to generation proclaimed the word of God orally or by writing,” and a history of
those who by their passion for novelties, plunged themselves into the greatest errors.
13 See for example, B. Schwane, Dogmengesch. d. Vornicänischen Zeit, 1862, where the sense in which dogmas
have no historical side is first expounded, and then it is shewn that dogmas, “notwithstanding, present a certain
side which permits a historical consideration, because in point of fact they have gone through historical devel-
opments.” But these historical developments present themselves simply either as solemn promulgations and
explications, or as private theological speculations.
29
torical view of, dogmatic tradition.14 The progress of the sciences15 and the conflict with
Protestantism could here, for the Catholic Church, have no other effect than that of leading
to the collecting, with great learning, of material for the history of dogma,16 the establishing
of the consensus patrum et doctorum, the exhibition of the necessity of a continuous explic-
ation of dogma, and the description of the history of heresies pressing in from without, re-
garded now as unheard-of novelties, and again as old enemies in new masks. The modern
Jesuit-Catholic historian indeed exhibits, in certain circumstances, a manifest indifference
to the task of establishing the semper idem in the faith of the Church, but this indifference
is at present regarded with disfavour, and, besides, is only an apparent one, as the continuous
though inscrutable guidance of the Church by the infallible teaching of the Pope is the more
emphatically maintained.17
25
14 If we leave out of account the Marcionite gnostic criticism of ecclesiastical Christianity, Paul of Samosata
and Marcellus of Ancyra may be mentioned as men who, in the earliest period, criticised the apologetic Alexan-
drian theology which was being naturalised (see the remarkable statement of Marcellus in Euseb. C. Marc. I. 4:
τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης κ.τ.λ., which I have chosen as the motto
of this book). We know too little of Stephen Gobarus (VI. cent.) to enable us to estimate his review of the doctrine
of the Church and its development (Photius Bibl. 232). With regard to the middle ages (Abelard “Sic et Non”),
see Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im MA., 1875. Hahn Gesch. der Ketzer, especially in the 11th, 12th and
13th centuries, 3 vols., 1845. Keller, Die Reformation und die alteren Reform-Parteien, 1885.
15 See Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, 2 vols., 1881, especially vol. II. p. 1 ff. 363 ff.
494 ff. (“Humanism and the science of history”). The direct importance of humanism for illuminating the history
of the middle ages is very little, and least of all for the history of the Church and of dogma. The only prominent
works here are those of Saurentius Valla and Erasmus. The criticism of the scholastic dogmas of the Church
and the Pope began as early as the 12th century. For the attitude of the Renaissance to religion, see Burckhardt,
Die Cultur der Renaissance, 2 vols., 1877.
16 Baronius, Annals Eccles. XIi. vol. 1588-1607. Chief work: Dionysius Petavius, Opus de theologicis dogma-
tibus. 4 vols. (incomplete) 1644-1650. See further Thomassin, Dogmata theologica. 3 vols. 1684-1689.
17 See Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, 1859. Hase, Handbuch der protest, Polemik. 1878. Joh. Delitszch,
Das Lehrsystem der röm. Kirche, 1875. New revelations, however, are rejected, and bold assumptions leading
that way are not favoured: See Schwane, above work p. 11: “The content of revelation is not enlarged by the de-
cisions or teaching of the Church, nor are new revelations added in course of time. . . . Christian truth cannot
therefore in its content be completed by the Church, nor has she ever claimed the right of doing so, but always
where new designations or forms of dogma became necessary for the putting down of error or the instruction
of the faithful, she would always teach what she had received in Holy Scripture or in the oral tradition of the
Apostles.” Recent Catholic accounts of the history of dogma are Klee, Lehrbuch der D.G. 2 vols. 1837, (Specu-
lative). Schwane, Dogmengesch. der Vornicänischen Zeit, 1862, der patrist. Zeit, 1869; der Mittleren Zeit, 1882.
30
It may be maintained that the Reformation opened the way for a critical treatment of
the history of dogma.18 But even in Protestant Churches, at first, historical investigations
remained under the ban of the confessional system of doctrine and were used only for po-
lemics.19 Church history itself up to the 18th century was not regarded as a theological dis-
cipline in the strict sense of the word; and the history of dogma existed only within the
26
sphere of dogmatics as a collection of testimonies to the truth, theologia patristica. It was
only after the material had been prepared in the course of the 16th and 17th centuries by
scholars of the various Church parties, and, above all, by excellent editions of the Fathers,20
Bach, Die D.G. des MA. 1873. There is a wealth of material for the history of dogma in Kuhn’s Dogmatik, as
well as in the great controversial writings occasioned by the celebrated work of Bellarmin; Disputationes de
controversiis Christianæ fidei adversus hujus temporis hæreticos, 1581-1593. It need not be said that, in spite
of their inability to treat the history of dogma historically and critically, much may be learned from these works,
and some other striking monographs of Roman Catholic scholars. But everything in history that is fitted to
shake the high antiquity and unanimous attestation of the Catholic dogmas, becomes here a problem, the solution
of which is demanded, though indeed its carrying out often requires a very exceptional intellectual subtlety.
18 Historical interest in Protestantism has grown up around the questions as to the power of the Pope, the
significance of Councils, or the Scripturalness of the doctrines set up by them, and about the meaning of the
Lord’s supper, of the conception of it by the Church Fathers; (see Œcolampadius and Melanchthon.) Protestants
were too sure that the doctrine of justification was taught in the scriptures to feel any need of seeking proofs for
it by studies in the history of dogma, and Luther also dispensed with the testimony of history for the dogma of
the Lord’s supper. The task of shewing how far and in what way Luther and the Reformers compounded with
history has not even yet been taken up. And yet there may be found in Luther’s writings surprising and excellent
critical comments on the history of dogma and the theology of the Fathers, as well as genial conceptions which
have certainly remained inoperative; see especially the treatise “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen,” and his judgment
on different Church Fathers. In the first edition of the Loci of Melanchthon we have also critical material for
estimating the old systems of dogma. Calvin's depreciatory estimate of the Trinitarian and Christological Formula,
which, however, he retracted at a later period is well known.
19 Protestant Church history was brought into being by the Interim, Flacius being its Father; see his Catalogus
Testium Veritatis, and the so-called Magdeburg Centuries, 1559-1574; also Jundt., Les Centuries de Magdebourg,
Paris, 1883. Von Engelhardt (Christenthum Justin’s, p. 9 ff.) has drawn attention to the estimate of Justin in the
Centuries, and has justly insisted on the high importance of this first attempt at a criticism of the Church Fathers.
Kliefoth (Einl. in d. D.G. 1839) has the merit of pointing out the somewhat striking judgment of A. Hyperius
on the history of dogma. Chemnitz, Examen concilii Tridentini, 1565. Forbesius a Corse (a Scotsman). Instruc-
tiones historico-theologiæ de doctrina Christiana, 1645.
20 The learning, the diligence in collecting, and the carefulness of the Benedictines and Maurians, as well as
of English, Dutch and French theologians, such as Casaubon, Vossius, Pearson, Dalläus, Spanheim, Grabe,
Basnage, etc. have never since been equalled, far less surpassed. Even in the literary, historical and higher criticism
these scholars have done splendid work, so far as the confessional dogmas did not come into question.
31
and after Pietism had exhibited the difference between Christianity and Ecclesiasticism, and
had begun to treat the traditional confessional structure of doctrine with indifference,21
that a critical investigation was entered on.
The man who was the Erasmus of the 18th century, neither orthodox nor pietistic, nor
rationalistic, but capable of appreciating all these tendencies; familiar with English, French
and Italian literature; influenced by the spirit of the new English Science,22 while avoiding
all statements of it that would endanger positive Christianity: John Lorenz Mosheim, treated
Church history in the spirit of his great teacher Leibnitz,23 and by impartial analysis, living
27
reproduction, and methodical artistic form raised it for the first time to the rank of a science.
In his monographic works also, he endeavours to examine impartially the history of dogma,
and to acquire the historic stand-point between the estimate of the orthodox dogmatics and
that of Gottfried Arnold. Mosheim, averse to all fault-finding and polemic, and abhorring
theological crudity as much as pietistic narrowness and undevout Illuminism, aimed at an
actual correct knowledge of history, in accordance with the principle of Leibnitz, that the
valuable elements which are everywhere to be found in history must be sought out and re-
cognised. And the richness and many-sidedness of his mind qualified him for gaining such
a knowledge. But his latitudinarian dogmatic standpoint as well as the anxiety to awaken
no controversy or endanger the gradual naturalising of a new science and culture, caused
him to put aside the most important problems of the history of dogma and devote his atten-
tion to political Church history as well as to the more indifferent historical questions. The
opposition of two periods which he endeavoured peacefully to reconcile could not in this
21 See especially, G. Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, 1699 also Baur, Epochen der
kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung, p. 84 ff.; Floring, G. Arnold als Kirchenhistoriker, Darmstadt, 1883. The latter
determines correctly the measure of Arnold’s importance. His work was the direct preparation for an impartial
examination of the history of dogma, however partial it was in itself. Pietism, here and there, after Spener, declared
war against scholastic dogmatics as a hindrance to piety, and in doing so broke the ban under which the knowledge
of history lay captive.
22 The investigations of the so-called English Deists about the Christian religion contain the first, and to some
extent a very significant free-spirited attempt at a critical view of the history of dogma (see Lechler, History of
English Deism, 1841). But the criticism is an abstract, rarely a historical one. Some very learned works bearing
on the history of dogma were written in England against the position of the Deists, especially by Lardner: see
also at an earlier time Bull, Defensio fidei nic.
23 Calixtus of Helmstädt was the forerunner of Leibnitz with regard to Church history. But the merit of having
recognised the main problem of the history of dogma does not belong to Calixtus. By pointing out what Protest-
antism and Catholicism had in common he did not in any way clear up the historical-critical problem. On the
other hand the Consensus repetitus of the Wittenberg theologians shews what fundamental questions Calixtus
had already stirred.
32
way be permanently set aside.24 In Mosheim’s sense, but without the spirit of that great
man, C. W. F. Walch taught on the subject and described the religious controversies of the
Church with an effort to be impartial, and has thus made generally accessible the abundant
material collected by the diligence of earlier scholars.25 Walch, moreover, in the “Gedanken 28
von der Geschichte der Glaubenslehre,” 1756, gave the impulse that was needed to fix atten-
tion on the history of dogma as a special discipline. The stand-point which he took up was
still that of subjection to ecclesiastical dogma, but without confessional narrowness. Ernesti
in his programme of the year 1759, “De theologiæ historiæ et dogmaticæ conjungendæ ne-
cessitate,” gave eloquent expression to the idea that Dogmatic is a positive science which
has to take its material from history, but that history itself requires a devoted and candid
study, on account of our being separated from the earlier epochs by a complicated tradition.26
He has also shewn in his celebrated “Antimuratorius,” that an impartial and critical invest-
igation of the problems of the history of dogma, might render the most effectual service to
the polemic against the errors of Romanism. Besides, the greater part of the dogmas were
already unintelligible to Ernesti, and yet during his lifetime the way was opened up for that
tendency in theology, which, prepared in Germany by Chr. Thomasius, supported by English
writers, drew the sure principles of faith and life from what is called reason, and therefore
was not only indifferent to the system of dogma, but felt it more and more to be the tradition
of unreason and of darkness. Of the three requisites of a historian ; knowledge of his subject,
29
candid criticism, and a capacity for finding himself at home in foreign interests and ideas,
the Rationalistic Theologians who had outgrown Pietism and passed through the school of
the English Deists and of Wolf, no longer possessed the first, a knowledge of the subject, to
24 Among the numerous historical writings of Mosheim may be mentioned specially his Dissert ad hist. Eccles.
pertinentes. 2 vols. 1731-1741, as well as the work: “De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum M. Commentarii,”
1753; see also “Institutions hist. Eccl.” last Edition, 1755.
25 Walch, “Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und Religionsstreitigkeiten bis
auf die Zeiten der Reformation.” II Thle (incomplete), 1762-1785. See also his “Entwurf einer vollständigen
Historie der Kirchenversammlungen,” 1759, as well as numerous monographs on the history of dogma. Such
were already produced by the older Walch, whose a Histor. theol. Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten der
Ev. Luth. Kirche,” 5 vols. 1730-1739, and “Histor.-theol. Einleit. in die Religionsstreitigkeiten welche sonderlich
ausser der Ev. Luth. Kirche entstanden sind 5 Thle,” 1933-1736, had already put polemics behind the knowledge
of history (see Gass. “Desch. der protest. Dogmatik,” 3rd Vol. p. 205 ff.).
26 Opusc. p. 576 f.: “Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, quæ omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, græcis,
latinis ducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere, nisi litteras
et historiam assumat.” The title of a programme of Crusius, Ernesti’s opponent, “De dogmatum Christianorum
historia cum probatione dogmatum non confundenda,” 1770, is significant of the new insight which was
steadily making way.
33
the same extent as some scholars of the earlier generation. The second, free criticism, they
possessed in the high degree guaranteed by the conviction of having a rational religion; the
third, the power of comprehension, only in a very limited measure. They had lost the idea
of positive religion, and with it a living and just conception of the history of religion.
In the history of thought there is always need for an apparently disproportionate ex-
penditure of power, in order to produce an advance in the development. And it would appear
as if a certain self-satisfied narrow-mindedness within the progressing ideas of the present,
as well as a great measure of inability even to understand the past and recognise its own
dependence on it, must make its appearance, in order that a whole generation may be freed
from the burden of the past. It needed the absolute certainty which Rationalism had found
in the religious philosophy of the age, to give sufficient courage to subject to historical criti-
cism the central dogmas on which the Protestant system as well as the Catholic finally rests,
the dogmas of the canon and inspiration on the one hand, and of the Trinity and Christology
on the other. The work of Lessing in this respect had no great results. We to-day see in his
theological writings the most important contribution to the understanding of the earliest
history of dogma, which that period supplies; but we also understand why its results were
then so trifling. This was due, not only to the fact that Lessing was no theologian by profes-
sion, or that his historical observations were couched in aphorisms, but because, like Leibnitz
and Mosheim, he had a capacity for appreciating the history of religion which forbade him
to do violence to that history or to sit in judgment on it, and because his philosophy in its
bearings on the case allowed him to seek no more from his materials than an assured under-
standing of them; in a word again, because he was no theologian. The Rationalists, on the
30
other hand, who within certain limits were no less his opponents than the orthodox, derived
the strength of their opposition to the systems of dogma, as the Apologists of the second
century had already done with regard to polytheism, from their religious belief and their
inability to estimate these systems historically. That, however, is only the first impression
which one gets here from the history, and it is everywhere modified by other impressions.
In the first place, there is no mistaking a certain latitudinarianism in several prominent
theologians of the rationalistic tendency. Moreover, the attitude to the canon was still fre-
quently, in virtue of the Protestant principle of scripture, an uncertain one, and it was here
chiefly that the different types of rational supernaturalism were developed. Then, with all
subjection to the dogmas of Natural religion, the desire for a real true knowledge was un-
fettered and powerfully excited. Finally, very significant attempts were made by some ration-
alistic theologians to explain in a real historical way the phenomena of the history of dogma,
and to put an authentic and historical view of that history in the place of barren pragmatic
or philosophic categories.
The special zeal with which the older rationalism applied itself to the investigation of
the canon, either putting aside the history of dogma, or treating it merely in the frame-work
34
of Church history, has only been of advantage for the treatment of our subject. It first began
to be treated with thoroughness when the historical and critical interests had become more
powerful than the rationalistic. After the important labours of Semler, which here, above
all, have wrought in the interests of freedom,27 and after some monographs on the history
of dogma,28 S. G. Lange for the first time treated the history of dogma as a special subject.29
Unfortunately, his comprehensively planned and carefully written work, which shews a real
31
understanding of the early history of dogma, remains in-complete. Consequently, W.
Münscher, in his learned manual, which was soon followed by his compendium of the history
of dogma, was the first to produce a complete presentation of our subject.30 Münscher’s
compendium is a counterpart to Giesler’s Church history; it shares with that the merit of
drawing from the sources, intelligent criticism and impartiality, but with a thorough
knowledge of details it fails to impart a real conception of the development of ecclesiastical
dogma. The division of the material into particular loci, which, in three sections, is carried
27 Semler, Einleitung zu Baumgartens evang. Glaubenslehre, 1759: also Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, zu
Baumgartens Untersuch. theol. Streitigkesten, 1762-1764. Semler paved the way for the view that dogmas have
arisen and been gradually developed under definite historical conditions. He was the first to grasp the problem
of the relation of Catholicism to early Christianity, because he freed the early Christian documents from the
letters of the Canon. Schröckh (Christl. Kirchengesch., 1786) in the spirit of Semler described with impartiality
and care the changes of the dogmas.
28 Rössler, Lehrbegriff der Christlichen Kirche in den 3 ersten Jahrb., 1775; also, Arbeiten by Burscher,
Heinrich, Stäudlin, etc., see especially, Löffler’s “Abhandlung welche eine kurze Darstellung der Entstehungsart
der Dreieinigkeit enthält, 1792, in the translation of Souverain’s Le Platonisme devoilé, 1700. The question as
to the Platonism of the Fathers, this fundamental question of the history of dogma, was raised even by Luther
and Flacius, and was very vigorously debated at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries, after
the Socinians had already affirmed it strongly. The question once more emerges on German soil in the church
history of G. Arnold, but cannot he said to have received the attention it deserves in the 150 years that have
followed (see the literature of the controversy in Tzsohirner, Fall des Heidenthums, p. 580 f.). Yet the problem
was first thrust aside by the speculative view of the history of christianity.
29 Lange. Ausführ. Gesch. der Dogmen, oder der Glaubenslehre der Christl. Kirche nach den Kirchenvater
ausgearbeitet. 1796.
30 Münscher, Handb. d. Christl. D. G. 4 vols. first 6 Centuries 1797-1809; Lehrbuch, 1st Edit. 1811; 3rd Edit.
edited by v. Cölln, Hupfeld and Neudecker, 1832-1838. Planck’s epoch-making work: Gesch. der Veränderungen
und der Bildung unseres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs. 6 vols. 1791-1800, had already for the most part appeared.
Contemporary with Münscher are Wundemann, Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des Athanas-
ius bis auf Gregor. d. Gr. 2 Thle. 1789-1799; Münter, Handbuch der alteren Christl. D. G. hrsg. von Ewers. 2
vols. 1802-1804; Stäudlin, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte, 1800, last Edition 1822, and Beck,
Comment. hist. decretorum religionis Christianæ, 1801.
35
through the whole history of the Church, makes insight into the whole Christian conception
of the different epochs impossible, and the prefixed “General History of Dogma,” is far too
sketchily treated to make up for that defect. Finally, the connection between the development
of dogma and the general ideas of the time is not sufficiently attended to. A series of
manuals followed the work of Münscher, but did not materially advance the study.31 The 32
compendium of Baumgarten Crusius,32 and that of F. K. Meier,33 stand out prominently

among them. The work of the former is distinguished by its independent learning as well
as by the discernment of the author that the centre of gravity of the subject lies in the so-
called general history of dogma.34 The work of Meier goes still further, and accurately per-
ceives that the division into a general and special history of dogma must be altogether given
up, while it is also characterised by an accurate setting and proportional arrangement of the
facts.35
The great spiritual revolution at the beginning of our century, which must in every re-
spect be regarded as a reaction against the efforts of the rationalistic epoch, changed also
the conceptions of the Christian religion and its history. It appears therefore plainly in the
treatment of the history of dogma. The advancement and deepening of Christian life, the
zealous study of the past, the new philosophy which no longer thrust history aside, but en-
deavoured to appreciate it in all its phenomena as the history of the spirit, all these factors
co-operated in begetting a new temper, and accordingly, a new estimate of religion proper
33
and of its history. There were three tendencies in theology that broke up rationalism; that
which was identified with the names of Schleiermacher and Neander, that of the Hegelians,
and that of the Confessionalists. The first two were soon divided into a right and a left, in
31 Augusti, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1805. 4 Edit. 1835. Berthold, Handb. der D. G. 2 vols. 1822-1823.
Schickedanz, Versuch einer Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehre, etc. 1827. Rüperti, Geschichte der Dogmen, 1831.
Lenz, Gesch. der Christl. Dogmen. 2 parts. 1834-1835. J. G. V. Engelhardt, Dogmengesch. 1839. See also Giesler,
Dogmengesch. 2 vols. edited by Redepenning, 1855: also Illgen, Ueber den Werth der Christl. D. G. 1817.
32 Baumgarten Crusius, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1852: also conpendium d. Christl. D. G. 2 parts 1830-1846,
the second part edited by Hase.
33 Meier, Lehrb. d. D. G, 1840, 2nd Edit. revised by G. Baur 1854.
34 The “Special History of Dogma,” in Baumgarten Crusius, in which every particular dogma is by itself pursued
through the whole history of the Church, is of course entirely unfruitful. But even the opinions which are given
in the “General History of Dogma,” are frequently very far from the mark (Cf. e.g., § 14 and p. 67), which is the
more surprising as no one can deny that he takes a scholarly view of history.
35 Meier’s Lehrbuch is formally and materially a very important piece of work, the value of which has not
been sufficiently recognised, because the author followed neither the track of Neander nor of Bauer. Besides the
excellences noted in the text, may be further mentioned, that almost everywhere Meier has distinguished correctly
between the history of dogma and the history of theology, and has given an account only of the former.
36
so far as they included conservative and critical interests from their very commencement.
The conservative elements have been used for building up the modern confessionalism,
which in its endeavours to go back to the Reformers has never actually got beyond the
theology of the Formula of Concord, the stringency of which it has no doubt abolished by
new theologoumena and concessions of all kinds. All these tendencies have in common the
effort to gain a real comprehension of history and be taught by it, that is, to allow the idea
of development to obtain its proper place, and to comprehend the power and sphere of the
individual. In this and in the deeper conception of the nature and significance of positive
religion, lay the advance beyond Rationalism. And yet the wish to understand history, has
in great measure checked the effort to obtain a true knowledge of it, and the respect for
history as the greatest of teachers, has not resulted in that supreme regard for facts which
distinguished the critical rationalism. The speculative pragmatism, which, in the Hegelian
School, was put against the “lower pragmatism,” and was rigorously carried out with the
view of exhibiting the unity of history, not only neutralised the historical material, in so far
as its concrete definiteness was opposed, as phenomenon, to the essence of the matter, but
also curtailed it in a suspicious way, as may be seem for example, in the works of Baur.
Moreover, the universal historical suggestions which the older history of dogma had given
were not at all, or only very little regarded. The history of dogma was, as it were, shut out
by the watchword of the immanent development of the spirit in Christianity. The disciples
of Hegel, both of the right and of the left, were, and still are, agreed in this watch-word,36
the working out of which, including an apology for the course of the history of dogma, must
be for the advancement of conservative theology. But at the basis of the statement that the
34
history of Christianity is the history of the spirit, there lay further a very one-sided conception
of the nature of religion, which confirmed the false idea that religion is theology. It will always,
however, be the imperishable merit of Hegel’s great disciple, F. Chr. Baur, in theology, that
he was the first who attempted to give a uniform general idea of the history of dogma, and
to live through the whole process in himself, without renouncing the critical acquisitions
of the 18th century.37 His brilliantly written manual of the history of dogma, in which the
36 Biedermann (Christl. Dogmatik. 2 Edit. I vol. p. 332 f.) says, “The history of the development of the Dogma
of the Person of Christ will bring before us step by step the ascent of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to its
metaphysical basis in the nature of his person. This was the quite normal and necessary way of actual faith, and
is not to be reckoned as a confused mixture of heterogeneous philosophical opinions. . . . The only thing taken
from the ideas of contemporary philosophy was the special material of consciousness in which the doctrine of
Christ’s Divinity was at any time expressed. The process of this doctrinal development was an inward necessary
one.”
37 Baur, Lehrbuch der Christl. D. G. 1847. 3rd Edit. 1867: also Vorles. über die Christl. D. G. edited by F. Baur,
1865-68. Further the Monographs, “Ueber die Christl. Lehre v. d. Versöhnung in ihrer gesch. Entw.” 1838: Ueber
die Christl. Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit u. d. Menschwerdung.” 1841: etc. D. F. Strauss, preceded him with his work:
37
history of this branch of theological science is relatively treated with the utmost detail, is,
however, in material very meagre, and shews in the very first proposition of the historical
presentation an abstract view of history.38 Neander, whose “Christliche Dogmengeschichte,”
1857, is distinguished by the variety of its points of view, and keen apprehension of particular
forms of doctrine, shews a far more lively and therefore a far more just conception of the
Christian religion. But the general plan of the work, (General history of dogma—loci, and
35
these according to the established scheme), proves that Neander has not succeeded in giving
real expression to the historical character of the study, and in attaining a clear insight into
the progress of the development.39
Kliefoth’s thoughtful and instructive, “Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte,” 1839,
contains the programme for the conception of the history of dogma characteristic of the
modern confessional theology. In this work the Hegelian view of history, not without being
influenced by Schleiermacher, is so represented as to legitimise a return to the theology of
the Fathers. In the successive great epochs of the Church several circles of dogmas have
been successively fixed, so that the respective doctrines have each time been adequately
formulated.40 Disturbances of the development are due to the influence of sin. Apart from
this, Kliefoth’s conception is in point of form equal to that of Baur and Strauss, in so far as
they also have considered the theology represented by themselves as the goal of the whole
historical development. The only distinction is that, according to them, the next following
stage always cancels the preceding, while according to Kliefoth, who, moreover, has no desire
to give effect to mere traditionalism, the new knowledge is added to the old. The new edifice
Die Christl. Glaubenslehre in ihrer gesch. Entw. 2 vols. 1840-41. From the stand-point of the Hegelian right we
have: Marheineke, Christl. D. G. edited by Matthias and Vatke, 1849. From the same stand-point, though at the
same time influenced by Schleiermacher, Dorner wrote “The History of the Person of Christ.”
38 See p. 63: “As Christianity appeared in contrast with Judaism and Heathenism, and could only represent
a new and peculiar form of the religious consciousness in distinction from both, reducing the contrasts of both
to a unity in itself, so also the first difference of tendencies developing themselves within Christianity, must be
determined by the relation in which it stood to Judaism on the one hand, and to Heathenism on the other.”
Compare also the very characteristic introduction to the first volume of the “Vorlesungen.”
39 Hagenbach’s Manual of the history of dogma, might be put alongside of Neander’s work. It agrees with it
both in plan and spirit. But the material of the history of dogma, which it offers in superabundance, seems far
less connectedly worked out than by Neander. In Shedd’s history of Christian doctrine the Americans possess
a presentation of the history of dogma worth noting, 2 vols. 3 Edit. 1883. The work of Fr. Bonifas. Hist. des
Dogmes. 2 vols. 1886, appeared after the death of the author and is not important.
40 No doubt Kliefoth also maintains for each period a stage of the disintegration of dogma, but this is not to
be understood in the ordinary sense of the word. Besides, there are ideas in this introduction which would hardly
obtain the approval of their author to-day.
38
of true historical knowledge, according to Kliefoth, is raised on the ruins of Traditionalism,

Scholasticism, Pietism, Rationalism and Mysticism. Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der evang.-
luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, 1848) has, after the example of Sartorius,
attempted to justify by history the Lutheran confessional system of doctrine from another
36
side, by representing it as the true mean between Catholicism and the Reformed Spiritualism.
This conception has found much approbation in the circles of Theologians related to
Thomasius, as against the Union Theology. But Thomasius is entitled to the merit of having
produced a Manual of the history of dogma which represents in the most worthy manner41
the Lutheran confessional view of the history of dogma. The introduction, as well as the
selection and arrangement of his material, shews that Thomasius has learned much from
Baur. The way in which he distinguishes between central and peripheral dogmas is, accord-
ingly, not very appropriate, especially for the earliest period. The question as to the origin
of dogma and theology is scarcely even touched by him. But he has an impression that the
central dogmas contain for every period the whole of Christianity, and that they must
therefore be apprehended in this sense.42 The presentation is dominated throughout by the
idea of the self-explication of dogma, though a malformation has to be admitted for the
middle ages,43 and therefore the formation of dogma is almost everywhere justified as the
testimony of the Church represented as completely hypostatised, and the outlook on the
41 Thomasius’ Die Christl. Dogmengesch. als Entwickel. Gesch. des Kirchl. Lehrbegriffs. 2 vols. 1874–76. 2nd
Edit. intelligently and carefully edited by Bonwetsch. and Seeberg, 1887. (Seeberg has produced almost a new
work in vol. II.) From the same stand-point is the manual of the history of dogma by H. Schmid, 1859, (in the
4th Ed. revised and transformed into an excellent collection of passages from the sources by Hauck, 1887) as
well as the Luther. Dogmatik (Vol. II. 1864: Der Kirchenglaube) of Kahnis, which, however, subjects particular
dogmas to a freer criticism.
42 See Vol. I. p. 14.
43 See Vol. I. p. 11. “The first period treats of the development of the great main dogmas which were to become
the basis of the further development (the Patristic age). The problem of the second period was, partly to work
up this material theologically, and partly to develop it. But this development, under the influence of the Hierarchy,
fell into false paths, and became partly, at least, corrupt (the age of Scholasticism), and therefore a reformation
was necessary. It was reserved for this third period to carry back the doctrinal formation, which had become
abnormal, to the old sound paths, and on the other hand, in virtue of the regeneration of the Church which
followed, to deepen it and fashion it according to that form which it got in the doctrinal systems of the Evangelic
Church, while the remaining part fixed its own doctrine in the decrees of Trent (period of the Reformation.).”
This view of history, which from the Christian stand-point, will allow absolutely nothing to be said against the
doctrinal formation of the early Church, is a retrogression from the view of Luther and the writers of the “Cen-
turies,” for these were well aware that the corruption did not first begin in the middle ages.
39
history of the time is put into the background. But narrow and insufficient as the complete
view here is, the excellences of the work in details are great, in respect of exemplary clearness
of presentation, and the discriminating knowledge and keen comprehension of the author
37
for religious problems. The most important work done by Thomasius is contained in his
account of the history of Christology.
In his outlines of the history of Christian dogma (Grundriss der Christl. Dogmengesch.
1870), which unfortunately has not been carried beyond the first part (Patristic period), F.
Nitzsch, marks an advance in the history of our subject. The advance lies, on the one hand,
in the extensive use he makes of monographs on the history of dogma, and on the other
hand, in the arrangement. Nitzsch has advanced a long way on the path that was first entered
by F. K. Meier, and has arranged his material in a way that far excels all earlier attempts.
The general and special aspects of the history of dogma are here almost completely worked
into one,44 and in the main divisions, “Grounding of the old Catholic Church doctrine,”
and “Development of the old Catholic Church doctrine,” justice is at last done to the most
important problem which the history of dogma presents, though in my opinion the division
is not made at the right place, and the problem is not so clearly kept in view in the execution
as the arrangement would lead one to expect.45 Nitzsch has freed himself from that specu-
44 This fulfils a requirement urged by Weizsäcker (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 170 ff.).
45 See Ritschl’s Essay, “Ueber die Methode der alteren Dogmengeschichte” (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1871.
p. 191 ff.) in which the advance made by Nitzsch is estimated, and at the same time an arrangement proposed
for the treatment of the earlier history of dogma which would group the material more clearly and more suitable
than has been done by Nitzsch. After having laid the foundation for a correct historical estimate of the develop-
ment of early Christianity in his work “Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche,” 1857, Ritschl published an
epoch-making study in the history of dogma in his “History of the doctrine of justification and reconciliation,”
2 edit. 1883. We have no superabundance of good monographs on the history of dogma. There are few that give
such exact information regarding the Patristic period as that of Von Engelhardt “Ueber das Christenthum
Justin’s,” 1878, and Zahn’s work on Marcellus, 1867. Among the investigators of our age, Renan above all has
clearly recognised that there are only two main periods in the history of dogma, and that the changes which
Christianity experienced after the establishment of the Catholic Church bear no proportion to the changes which
preceded. His words are as follows (Hist. des origin. du Christianisme T. VII. p. 503 f.):—the division about the
year 180 is certainly placed too early, regard being had to what was then really authoritative in the Church.—“Si
nous comparons maintenant le Christianisme, tel qu’il existait vers l’an 180, an Christianisme du IVe et du Ve
siècle, au Christianisme du moyen âge, an Christianisme de nos jours, nous trouvons qu’en réalité it s’est augmente
des très peu de chose dans les siècles qui ont suivis. En 180, le nouveau Testament est clos: it ne s’y ajoutera plus
un seul livre nouveau(?). Lentement, les Épitres de Paul ont conquis leur place à la suite des Evangiles, dans le
code sacré et dans la liturgie. Quant aux dogmes, rien n’est fixé; mais le germe de tout existe; presque aucune
idée n’apparaitra qui ne puisse faire valoir des autorités du 1er et du 2e siècle. Il y a du trop, il y a des
contradictions; le travail théologique consistera bien plus á émonder, à écarter des superfuites qu’à inventer du
40
lative view of the history of dogma which reads ideas into it. No doubt idea and motive on
the one hand, form and expression on the other, must be distinguished for every period.
But the historian falls into vagueness as soon as he seeks and professes to find behind the
demonstrable ideas and aims which have moved a period, others of which, as a matter of
fact, that period itself knew nothing at all. Besides, the invariable result of that procedure is
38
to concentrate the attention on the theological and philosophical points of dogma, and
either neglect or put a new construction on the most concrete and important, the expression
of the religious faith itself. Rationalism has been reproached with “throwing out the child
with the bath,” but this is really worse, for here the child is thrown out while the bath is re-
tained. Every advance in the future treatment of our subject will further depend on the effort
to comprehend the history of dogma without reference to the momentary opinions of the
39
present, and also on keeping it in closest connection with the history of the Church, from
which it can never be separated without damage. We have something to learn on this point
from rationalistic historians of dogma.46 But progress is finally dependent on a true percep-
nouveau. L’Église laissera tomber une foule de choses mal commencées, elle sortira de bien des impasses. Elle
a encore deux cœurs, pour ainsi dire; elle a plusieurs têtes; ces anomalies tomberont; mais aucun dogme vraiment
original ne se formera plus.” Also the discussions in chapter 28–34 of the same volume. H. Thiersch (Die Kirche
im Apostolischen Zeitalter, 1852) reveals a deep insight into the difference between the spirit of the New Testament
writers and the post-Apostolic Fathers, but he has overdone these differences, and sought to explain them by
the mythological assumption of an Apostasy. A great amount of material for the history of dogma may be found
in the great work of Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien.
2 Edit. 1864.
46 By the connection with general church history we must, above all, understand, a continuous regard to the
world within which the church has been developed, The most recent works on the history of the church and of
dogma, those of Renan, Overbeck (Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur). Aube, Von Engelhardt (Justin), Kühn
(Minucius Felix). Hatch (“Organization of the Early Church,” and especially his posthumous work “The influence
of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church,” 1890, in which may be found the most ample proof for
the conception of the early history of dogma which is set forth in the following pages), are in this respect worthy
of special note. Deserving of mention also is R. Rothe, who, in his “Vorlesungen über Kirchengeschichte,” edited
by Weingarten,” 1875, 2 vols., gave most significant suggestions towards a really historical conception of the
history of the church and of dogma. To Rothe belongs the undiminished merit of realising thoroughly the sig-
nificance of a nationality in church history. But the theology of our century is also indebted for the first scientific
conception of Catholicism, not to Marheineke or Winer, but to Rothe (see Vol. II. pp. 1–11 especially p. 7 f.).
“The development of the Christian Church in the Græco-Roman world was not at the same time a development
of that world by the Church and further by Christianity. There remained, as the result of the process, nothing
but the completed Church. The world which had built it had made itself bankrupt in doing so.” With regard to
the origin and development of the Catholic cultus and constitution, nay, even of the Ethic (see Luthardt, Die
antike Ethik, 1887, preface), that has been recognised by Protestant scholars, which one always hesitates to re-
41
tion of what the Christian religion originally was, for this perception alone enables us to
distinguish that which sprang out of the inherent power of Christianity from that which it
has assimilated in the course of its history. For the historian, however, who does not wish
to serve a party, there are two standards in accordance with which he may criticise the history
of dogma. He may either, as far as this is possible, compare it with the Gospel, or he may
judge it according to the historical conditions of the time and the result. Both ways can exist
40
side by side, if only they are not mixed up with one another. Protestantism has in principle
expressly recognised the first, and it will also have the power to bear its conclusions ; for the
saying of Tertullian still holds good in it; “Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi.”
The historian who follows this maxim, and at the same time has no desire to be wiser than
the facts, will, while furthering science, perform the best service also to every Christian
community that desires to build itself upon the Gospel.
After the appearance of the first and second editions of this Work, Loofs published,
“Leitfaden für seine Vorlesungen über Dogmengeschichte,” Halle, 1889, and in the following
year, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, zunächst für seine Vorlesungen,”
(second and enlarged edition of the first-named book). The work in its conception of dogma
and its history comes pretty near that stated above, and it is distinguished by independent
investigation and excellent selection of material. I myself have published a “Grundriss der
Dogmengeschichte,” 2 Edit. in one vol. 1893. (Outlines of the History of Dogma, English
translation. Hodder and Stoughton). That this has not been written in vain, I have the
pleasure of seeing from not a few notices of professional colleagues. I may mention the
Church history of Herzog in the new revision by Koffmane, the first vol. of the Church
history of Karl Müller, the first vol. of the Symbolik of Kattenbusch, and Kaftan’s work.
“The truth of the Christian religion.” Wilhelm Schmidt, “Der alte Glaube und die Wahrheit
cognise with regard to catholic dogma: see the excellent remarks of Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Vol.
I. p. 3 ff. It may be hoped that an intelligent consideration of early christian literature will form the bridge to a
broad and intelligent view of the history of dogma. The essay of Overbeck mentioned above (Histor. Zeitschrift
N. F. XII. p. 417 ff.) may be most heartily recommended in this respect. It is very gratifying to find an investig-
ator so conservative as Sohm, now fully admitting that “Christian theology grew up in the second and third
centuries, when its foundations were laid for all time (?), the last great production of the Hellenic Spirit.”
(Kirchengeschichte im Grundriss. 1888, p. 37). The same scholar in his very important Kirchenrecht. Bd. I.
1892. has transferred to the history of the origin of Church law and Church organization, the points of view
which I have applied in the following account to the consideration of dogma. He has thereby succeeded in cor-
recting many old errors and prejudices; but in my opinion he has obscured the truth by exaggerations connected
with a conception, not only of original Christianity, but also of the Gospel in general, which is partly a narrow
legal view, partly an enthusiastic one. He has arrived ex errare per veritatem ad errorem; but there are few books
from which so much may be learned about early church history as from this paradoxical “ Kirchenrecht.”
42
des Christenthums,” 1891, has attempted to furnish a refutation in principle of Kaftan’s

work.
43
Chapter II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma
II
THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA

41
§ I. Introductory.
THE Gospel presents itself as an Apocalyptic message on the soil of the Old Testament,
and as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, and yet is a new thing, the creation of a
universal religion on the basis of that of the Old Testament. It appeared when the time was
fulfilled, that is, it is not without a connection with the stage of religious and spiritual devel-
opment which was brought about by the intercourse of Jews and Greeks, and was established
in the Roman Empire; but still it is a new religion because it cannot be separated from Jesus
Christ. When the traditional religion has become too narrow the new religion usually appears
as something of a very abstract nature; philosophy comes upon the scene, and religion
withdraws from social life and becomes a private matter. But here an overpowering person-
ality has appeared—the Son of God. Word and deed coincide in that personality, and as it
leads men into a new communion with God, it unites them at the same time inseparably
with itself, enables them to act on the world as light and leaven, and joins them together in
a spiritual unity and an active confederacy.
2. Jesus Christ brought no new doctrine, but he set forth in his own person a holy life
with God and before God, and gave himself in virtue of this life to the service of his brethren
in order to win then for the Kingdom of God, that is, to lead them out of selfishness and
the world to God, out of the natural connections and contrasts to a union in love, and prepare
them for an eternal kingdom and an eternal life. But while working for this Kingdom of
God he did not withdraw from the religious and political communion of his people, nor
42
did he induce his disciples to leave that communion. On the contrary, he described the
Kingdom of God as the fulfilment of the promises given to the nation, and himself as the
Messiah whom that nation expected. By doing so he secured for his new message, and with
it his own person, a place in the system of religious ideas and hopes, which by means of the
Old Testament were then, in diverse forms, current in the Jewish nation. The origin of a
doctrine concerning the Messianic hope, in which the Messiah was no longer an unknown
being, but Jesus of Nazareth, along with the new temper and disposition of believers was a
direct result of the impression made by the person of Jesus. The conception of the Old
Testament in accordance with the analogia fidei, that is, in accordance with the conviction
that this Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, was therewith given. Whatever sources of comfort
and strength Christianity, even in its New Testament, has possessed or does possess up to
the present, is for the most part taken from the Old Testament, viewed from a Christian
stand-point, in virtue of the impression of the person of Jesus. Even its dross was changed
into gold; its hidden treasures were brought forth, and while the earthly and transitory were
44
recognised as symbols of the heavenly and eternal, there rose up a world of blessings, of
holy ordinances, and of sure grace prepared by God from eternity. One could joyfully make
oneself at home in it; for its long history guaranteed a sure future and a blessed close, while
it offered comfort and certainty in all the changes of life to every individual heart that would
only raise itself to God. From the positive position which Jesus took up towards the Old
Testament, that is, towards the religious traditions of his people, his Gospel gained a footing
which, later on, preserved it from dissolving in the glow of enthusiasm, or melting away in
the ensnaring dream of antiquity, that dream of the indestructible Divine nature of the human
spirit, and the nothingness and baseness of all material things.47 But from the positive attitude
of Jesus to the Jewish tradition, there followed also, for a generation that had long been ac-
customed to grope after the Divine active in the world, the summons to think out a theory
43
of the media of revelation, and so put an end to the uncertainty with which speculation had
hitherto been afflicted. This, like every theory of religion, concealed in itself the danger of
crippling the power of faith; for men are ever prone to compound with religion itself by a
religious theory.
3. The result of the preaching of Jesus, however, in the case of the believing Jews, was
not only the illumination of the Old Testament by the Gospel and the confirmation of the
Gospel by the Old Testament, but not less, though indirectly, the detachment of believers
from the religious community of the Jews from the Jewish Church. How this came about
cannot be discussed here: we may satisfy ourselves with the fact that it was essentially accom-
plished in the first two generations of believers. The Gospel was a message for humanity
even when there was no break with Judaism; but it seemed impossible to bring this message
home to men who were not Jews in any other way than by leaving the Jewish Church. But
to leave that Church was to declare it to be worthless, and that could only be done by con-
ceiving it as a malformation from its very commencement, or assuming that it had tempor-
arily or completely fulfilled its mission. In either case it was necessary to put another in its
place, for, according to the Old Testament, it was unquestionable that God had not only
given revelations, but through these revelations had founded a nation, a religious community.
The result, also, to which the conduct of the unbelieving Jews, and the social union of the
disciples of Jesus required by that conduct, led, was carried home with irresistible power:
47 The Old Testament of itself alone could not have convinced the Græco-Roman world. But the converse
question might perhaps be raised as to what results the Gospel would have had in that world without its union
with the Old Testament. The Gnostic Schools and the Marcionite Church are to some extent the answer. But
would they ever have arisen without the presupposition of a Christian community which recognised the Old
Testament?
45
believers in Christ are the community of God, they are the true Israel, the ἐκκλησία τοῦ
θεοῦ: but the Jewish Church persisting in its unbelief is the Synagogue of Satan. Out of this
consciousness sprang—first as a power in which one believed, but which immediately began
44
to be operative, though not as a commonwealth—the Christian Church, a special communion
of hearts on the basis of a personal union with God, established by Christ and mediated by
the Spirit; a communion whose essential mark was to claim as its own the Old Testament
and the idea of being the people of God, to sweep aside the Jewish conception of the Old
Testament and the Jewish Church, and thereby gain the shape and power of a community
that is capable of a mission for the world.
4. This independent Christian community could not have been formed had not Judaism,
in consequence of inner and outer developments, then reached a point at which it must
either altogether cease to grow or burst its shell. This community is the presupposition of
the history of dogma, and the position which it took up towards the Jewish tradition is,
strictly speaking, the point of departure for all further developments, so far as with the re-
moval of all national and ceremonial peculiarities it proclaimed itself to be what the Jewish
Church wished to be. We find the Christian Church about the middle of the third century,
after severe crisis, in nearly the same position to the Old Testament and to Judaism as it was
150 or 200 years earlier.48 It makes the same claim to the Old Testament, and builds its faith
and hope upon its teaching. It is also, as before, strictly anti-national; above all, anti-judaic,
and sentences the Jewish religious community to the abyss of hell. It might appear, then, as
though the basis for the further development of Christianity as a church was completely
given from the moment in which the first breach of believers with the synagogue and the
formation of independent Christian communities took place. The problem, the solution of
which will always exercise this church, so far as it reflects upon its faith, will be to turn the
Old Testament more completely to account in its own sense, so as to condemn the Jewish
45
Church with its particular and national forms.
5. But the rule even for the Christian use of the Old Testament lay originally in the living
connection in which one stood with the Jewish people and its traditions, and a new religious
community, a religious commonwealth, was not yet realised, although it existed for faith
and thought. If again we compare the Church about the middle of the third century with
the condition of Christendom 150 or 200 years before, we shall find that there is now a real
religious commonwealth, while at the earlier period there were only communities who be-
lieved in a heavenly Church, whose earthly image they were, endeavoured to give it expression
with the simplest means, and lived in the future as strangers and pilgrims on the earth,
48 We here leave out of account learned attempts to expound Paulinism. Nor do we take any notice of certain
truths regarding the relation of the Old Testament to the New, and regarding the Jewish religion, stated by the
Antignostic church teachers, truths which are certainly very important, but have not been sufficiently utilised.
46
hastening to meet the Kingdom of whose existence they had the surest guarantee. We now
really find a new commonwealth, politically formed and equipped with fixed forms of all
kinds. We recognise in these forms few Jewish, but many Græco-Roman features, and finally
we perceive also in the doctrine of faith on which this common-wealth is based, the philo-
sophic spirit of the Greeks. We find a Church as a political union and worship institute, a
formulated faith and a sacred learning; but one thing we no longer find, the old enthusiasm
and individualism which had not felt itself fettered by subjection to the authority of the Old
Testament. Instead of enthusiastic independent Christians, we find a new literature of rev-
elation, the New Testament, and Christian priests. When did these formations begin? How
and by what influence was the living faith transformed into the creed to be believed, the
surrender to Christ into a philosophic Christology, the Holy Church into the corpus
permixtum, the glowing hope of the Kingdom of heaven into a doctrine of immortality and
deification, prophecy into a learned exegesis and theological science, the bearers of the
spirit into clerics, the brethren into laity held in tutelage, miracles and healings into nothing
or into priestcraft, the fervent prayers into a solemn ritual, renunciation of the world into
a jealous dominion over the world, the “spirit” into constraint and law ?
46
There can be no doubt about the answer: these formations are as old in their origin as
the detachment of the Gospel from the Jewish Church. A religious faith which seeks to es-
tablish a communion of its own in opposition to another, is compelled to borrow from that
other what it needs. The religion which is life and feeling of the heart cannot be converted
into a knowledge determining the motley multitude of men without deferring to their wishes
and opinions. Even the holiest must clothe itself in the same existing earthly forms as the
profane if it wishes to found on earth a confederacy which is to take the place of another,
and if it does not wish to enslave, but to determine the reason. When the Gospel was rejected
by the Jewish nation, and had disengaged itself from all connection with that nation, it was
already settled whence it must take the material to form for itself a new body and be trans-
formed into a Church and a theology. National and particular, in the ordinary sense of the
word, these forms could not be: the contents of the Gospel were too rich for that; but separ-
ated from Judaism, nay, even before that separation, the Christian religion came in contact
with the Roman world and with a culture which had already mastered the world, viz., the
Greek. The Christian Church and its doctrine were developed within the Roman world and
Greek culture in opposition to the Jewish Church. This fact is just as important for the history
of dogma as the other stated above, that this Church was continuously nourished on the
Old Testament. Christendom was of course conscious of being in opposition to the empire
and its culture, as well as to Judaism; but this from the beginning—apart from a few excep-
tions—was not without reservations. No man can serve two masters; but in setting up a
spiritual power in this world one must serve an earthly master, even when he desires to
naturalise the spiritual in the world. As a consequence of the complete break with the Jewish
47
Church there followed not only the strict necessity of quarrying the stones for the building
of the Church from the Græco-Roman world, but also the idea that Christianity has a more
positive relation to that world than to the synagogue. And, as the Church was being built,
47
the original enthusiasm must needs vanish. The separation from Judaism having taken place,
it was necessary that the spirit of another people should be admitted, and should also mater-
ially determine the manner of turning the Old Testament to advantage.
6. But an inner necessity was at work here no less than an outer. Judaism and Hellenism
in the age of Christ were opposed to each other, not only as dissimilar powers of equal value,
but the latter having its origin among a small people, became a universal spiritual power,
which, severed from its original nationality, had for that very reason penetrated foreign
nations. It had even laid hold of Judaism, and the anxious care of her professional watchmen
to hedge round the national possession, is but a proof of the advancing decomposition
within the Jewish nation. Israel, no doubt, had a sacred treasure which was of greater value
than all the treasures of the Greeks,—the living God; but in what miserable vessels was this
treasure preserved, and how much inferior was all else possessed by this nation in compar-
ison with the riches, the power, the delicacy and freedom of the Greek spirit and its intellec-
tual possessions. A movement like that of Christianity, which discovered to the Jew the soul
whose dignity was not dependent on its descent from Abraham, but on its responsibility to
God, could not continue in the frame-work of Judaism however expanded, but must soon
recognise in that world which the Greek spirit had discovered and prepared, the field which
belonged to it: εἰκότως Ἰουδαίοίς μὲν νόμος, Ἕλλεσι δὲ φιλοσοφία μέχρις τῆς παρουσίας
ἐντεῦθεν δὲ ἡ κλῆσις ἡ καθολική [to the Jews the law, to the Greeks Philosophy, up to the
Parousia; from that time the catholic invitation]. But the Gospel at first was preached exclus-
ively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that which inwardly united it with Hellenism
did not yet appear in any doctrine or definite form of knowledge.
On the contrary, the Church doctrine of faith, in the preparatory stage, from the Apo-
logists up to the time of Origen, hardly in any point shews the traces, scarcely even the re-
membrance of a time in which the Gospel was not detached from Judaism. For that very
48
reason it is absolutely impossible to understand this preparation and development solely
from the writings that remain to us as monuments of that short earliest period. The attempts
at deducing the genesis of the Church’s doctrinal system from the theology of Paul, or from
compromises between Apostolic doctrinal ideas, will always miscarry; for they fail to note
that to the most important premises of the Catholic doctrine of faith belongs an element
48
which we cannot recognise as dominant in the New Testament.49 viz., the Hellenic50 spirit.
As far backwards as we can trace the history of the propagation of the Church’s doctrine of
faith, from the middle of the third century to the end of the first, we nowhere perceive a
49
49 There is indeed no single writing of the new Testament which does not betray the influence of the mode
of thought and general conditions of the culture of the time which resulted from the Hellenising of the east:
even the use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament attests this fact. Nay, we may go further, and say that
the Gospel itself is historically unintelligible, so long as we compare it with an exclusive Judaism as yet unaffected
by any foreign influence. But on the other hand, it is just as clear that, specifically, Hellenic ideas form the pre-
suppositions neither for the Gospel itself, nor for the most important New Testament writings. It is a question
rather as to a general spiritual atmosphere created by Hellenism, which above all strengthened the individual
element, and with it the idea of completed personality, in itself living and responsible. On this foundation we
meet with a religious mode of thought in the Gospel and the early Christian writings, which so far as it is at all
dependent on an earlier mode of thought, is determined by the spirit of the Old Testament (Psalms and
Prophets) and of Judaism. But it is already otherwise with the earliest Gentile Christian writings. The mode of
thought here is so thoroughly determined by the Hellenic spirit that we seem to have entered a new world when
we pass from the synoptists, Paul and John, to Clement, Barnabas, Justin or Valeutinus. We may therefore say,
especially in the frame-work of the history of dogma, that the Hellenic element has exercised an influence on
the Gospel first on Gentile Christian soil, and by those who were Greek by birth, if only we reserve the general
spiritual atmosphere above referred to. Even Paul is no exception; for in spite of the well-founded statement of
Weizsäcker (Apostolic Age, vol. I. Book II) and Heinrici (Das 2 Sendschreiben an die Korinthier, 1887, p. 578
ff.), as to the Hellenism of Paul, it is certain that the Apostle’s mode of religious thought, in the strict sense of
the word, and therefore also the doctrinal formation peculiar to him, are but little determined by the Greek
spirit. But it is to he specially noted that as a missionary and an Apologist he made use of Greek ideas (Epistles
to the Romans and Corinthians). He was not afraid to put the Gospel into Greek modes of thought. To this extent
we can already observe in him the beginning of the development which we can trace so clearly in the Gentile
Church from Clement to Justin, and from Justin to Irenæus.
50 The complete universalism of salvation is given in the Pauline conception of Christianity. But this conception
is singular. Because: (1) the Pauline universalism is based on a criticism of the Jewish religion as religion, including
the Old Testament, which was not understood and therefore not received by Christendom in general. (2) Because
Paul not only formulated no national anti-judaism, but always recognised the prerogative of the people of Israel
as a people. (3) Because his idea of the Gospel, with all his Greek culture, is independent of Hellenism in its
deepest grounds. This peculiarity of the Pauline Gospel is the reason why little more could pass from it into the
common consciousness of Christendom than the universalism of salvation, and why the later development of
the Church cannot be explained from Paulinism. Baur, therefore, was quite right when he recognised that we
must exhibit another and more powerful element in order to comprehend the post-Pauline formations. In the
selection of this element, however, he has made a fundamental mistake by introducing the narrow national
Jewish Christianity, and he has also given much too great scope to Paulinism by wrongly conceiving it as Gentile
49
leap, or the sudden influx of an entirely new element. What we perceive is rather the
gradual disappearance of an original element, the Enthusiastic and Apocalyptic, that is, of
the sure consciousness of an immediate possession of the Divine Spirit, and the hope of the
future conquering the present; individual piety conscious of itself and sovereign, living in
the future world, recognising no external authority and no external barriers. This piety be-
came ever weaker and passed away: the utilising of the Codex of Revelation, the Old Testa-
ment, proportionally increased with the Hellenic influences which controlled the process,
for the two went always hand in hand. At an earlier period the Churches made very little
use of either, because they had in individual religious inspiration on the basis of Christ’s
preaching and the sure hope of his Kingdom which was near at hand, much more than
either could bestow. The factors whose co-operation we observe in the second and third
centuries, were already operative among the earliest Gentile Christians. We nowhere find
a yawning gulf in the great development which lies between the first Epistle of Clement and
50
the work of Origen, Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Even the importance which the “Apostolic” was to obtain,
was already foreshadowed by the end of the first century, and enthusiasm always had its
limits.51 The most decisive division, therefore, falls before the end of the first century; or
more correctly, the relatively new element, the Greek, which is of importance for the forming
of the Church as a commonwealth, and consequently for the formation of its doctrine, is
clearly present in the churches even in the Apostolic age. Two hundred years, however,
passed before it made itself completely at home in the Gospel, although there were points
of connection inherent in the Gospel.
Christian doctrine. One great difficulty for the historian of the early Church is that he cannot start from Paulinism,
the plainest phenomenon of the Apostolic age, in seeking to explain the following development, that in fact the
premises for this development are not at all capable of being indicated in the form of outlines, just because they
were too general. But, on the other hand, the Pauline theology, this theology of one who had been a Pharisee,
is the strongest proof of the independent and universal power of the impression made by the Person of Jesus.
51 In the main writings of the New Testament itself we have a twofold conception of the Spirit. According to
the one he comes upon the believer fitfully, expresses himself in visible signs, deprives men of self-consciousness,
and puts them beside themselves. According to the other, the spirit is a constant possession of the Christian,
operates in him by enlightening the conscience and strengthening the character, and his fruits are love, joy,
peace, patience, gentleness, etc. (Gal. V. 22). Paul above all taught Christians to value these fruits of the spirit
higher than all the other effects of his working. But he has not by any means produced a perfectly clear view on
this point: for “he himself spoke with more tongues than they all.” As yet “Spirit” lay within “Spirit.” One felt
in the spirit of sonship a completely new gift coming from God and recreating life, a miracle of God; further,
this spirit also produced sudden exclamations—“Abba, Father” and thus shewed himself in a way patent to the
senses. For that very reason, the spirit of ecstasy and of miracle appeared identical with the spirit of sonship.
(See Gunkel, Die Wirkungen d. h. Geistes nach der popularen Anschauung der Apostol. Zeit. Göttingen, 1888).
50
7. The cause of the great historical fact is clear. It is given in the fact that the Gospel,
rejected by the majority of the Jews, was very soon proclaimed to those who were not Jews,
that after a few decades the greater number of its professors were found among the Greeks,
and that, consequently. the development leading to the Catholic dogma took place within
Grco-Roman culture. But within this culture there was lacking the power of understanding
either the idea of the completed Old Testament theocracy, or the idea of the Messiah. Both
of these essential elements of the original proclamation, therefore, must either be neglected
or remodelled.52 But it is hardly allowable to mention details however important, where the
51
whole aggregate of ideas, of religious historical perceptions and presuppositions, which
were based on the old Testament, understood in a Christian sense, presented itself as
something new and strange. One can easily appropriate words, but not practical ideas. Side
by side with the Old Testament religion as the presupposition of the Gospel, and using its
forms of thought, the moral and religious views and ideals dominant in the world of Greek
culture could not but insinuate themselves into the communities consisting of Gen-tiles.
From the enormous material that was brought home to the hearts of the Greeks, whether
formulated by Paul or by any other, only a few rudimentary ideas could at first be appropri-
ated. For that very reason, the Apostolic Catholic doctrine of faith in its preparation and
establishment, is no mere continuation of that which, by uniting things that are certainly
very dissimilar, is wont to be described as “Biblical Theology of the New Testament.” Biblical
Theology, even when kept within reasonable limits, is not the presupposition of the history
of dogma. The Gentile Christians were little able to comprehend the controversies which
stirred the Apostolic age within Jewish Christianity. The presuppositions of the history of
dogma are given in certain fundamental ideas, or rather motives of the Gospel, (in the
preaching concerning Jesus Christ, in the teaching of Evangelic ethics and the future life,
in the Old Testament capable of any interpretation, but to be interpreted with reference to
Christ and the Evangelic history), and in the Greek spirit.53
52 It may even be said here that the ἀθανασία (ζωὴ αἰώνιος), on the one hand, and the ἐκκλησία, on the other,
have already appeared in place of the Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, and that the idea of Messiah has been finally replaced
by that of the Divine Teacher and of God manifest in the flesh.
53 It is one of the merits of Bruno Bauer (Christus und die Cäsaren, 1877), that he has appreciated the real
significance of the Greek element in the Gentile Christianity which became the Catholic Church and doctrine,
and that he has appreciated the influence of the Judaism of the Diaspora as a preparation for this Gentile
Christianity. But these valuable contributions have unfortunately been deprived of their convincing power by
a baseless criticism of the early Christian literature, to which Christ and Paul have fallen a sacrifice. Somewhat
more cautious are the investigations of Havet in the fourth volume of Le Christianisme, 1884; Le Nouveau
Testament. He has won great merit by the correct interpretation of the elements of Gentile Christianity devel-
oping themselves to catholicism, but his literary criticism is often unfortunately entirely abstract, reminding
one of the criticism of Voltaire, and therefore his statements in detail are, as a rule, arbitrary and untenable.
51
8. The foregoing statements involve that the difference between the development which
led to the Catholic doctrine of religion and the original condition, was by no means a total
one. By recognising the Old Testament as a book of Divine revelation, the Gentile Christians
52
received along with it the religious speech which was used by Jewish Christians, were made
dependent upon the interpretation which had been used from the very beginning, and even
received a great part of the Jewish literature which accompanied the Old Testament. But
the possession of a common religious speech and literature is never a mere outward bond
of union, however strong the impulse be to introduce the old familiar contents into the
newly acquired speech. The Jewish, that is, the Old Testament element, divested of its na-
tional peculiarity, has remained the basis of Christendom. It has saturated this element with
the Greek spirit, but has always clung to its main idea, faith in God as the creator and ruler
of the world. It has in the course of its development rejected important parts of that Jewish
53
element, and has borrowed others at a later period from the great treasure that was trans-
mitted to it. It has also been able to turn to account the least adaptable features, if only for
the external confirmation of its own ideas. The Old Testament applied to Christ and his
universal Church has always remained the decisive document, and it was long ere Christian
writings received the same authority, long ere individual doctrines and sayings of Apostolic
writings obtained an influence on the formation of ecclesiastical doctrine.
9. From yet another side there makes its appearance an agreement between the circles
of Palestinian believers in Jesus and the Gentile Christian communities, which endured for
more than a century, though it was of course gradually effaced. It is the enthusiastic element
which unites them, the consciousness of standing in an immediate union with God through
the Spirit, and receiving directly from God’s hand miraculous gifts, powers and revelations,
There is a school in Holland at the present time closely related to Bruno Bauer and Havet, which attempts to
banish early Christianity from the world. Christ and Paul are creations of the second century: the history of
Christianity begins with the passage of the first century into the second—a peculiar phenomenon on the soil of
Hellenised Judaism in quest of a Messiah. This Judaism created Jesus Christ just as the later Greek religious
philosophers created their Saviour (Apollonius, for example). The Marcionite Church produced Paul, and the
growing Catholic Church completed him. See the numerous treatises of Loman, the Verisimilia of Pierson and
Naber (1886), and the anonymous English work “Antigua Mater” (1887), also the works of Steck (see especially
his Untersuchung über den Galaterbrief). Against these works see P. V. Schmidt’s “Der Galaterbrief,” 1892. It
requires a deep knowledge of the problems which the first two centuries of the Christian Church present, in
order not to thrust aside as simply absurd these attempts, which as yet have failed to deal with the subject in a
connected way. They have their strength in the difficulties and riddles which are contained in the history of the
formation of the Catholic tradition in the second century. But the single circumstance that we are asked to regard
as a forgery such a document as the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, appears to me, of itself, to be an un-
answerable argument against the new hypotheses.
52
granted to the individual that he may turn them to account in the service of the Church.
The depotentiation of the Christian religion, where one may believe in the inspiration of
another, but no longer feels his own, nay, dare not feel it, is not altogether coincident with
its settlements on Greek soil. On the contrary, it was more than two centuries ere weakness
and reflection suppressed, or all but suppressed, the forms in which the personal conscious-
ness of God originally expressed itself.54 Now it certainly lies in the nature of enthusiasm,
that it can assume the most diverse forms of expression, and follow very different impulses,
and so far it frequently separates instead of uniting. But so long as criticism and reflection
54
are not yet awakened, and a uniform ideal hovers before one, it does unite, and in this sense
there existed an identity of disposition between the earliest Jewish Christians and the still
enthusiastic Gentile Christian communities.
10. But, finally, there is a still further uniting element between the beginnings of the
development to Catholicism, and the original condition of the Christian religion as a
movement within Judaism, the importance of which cannot be over-rated, although we
have every reason to complain here of the obscurity of the tradition. Between the Græco-
Roman world which was in search of a spiritual religion, and the Jewish commonwealth
which already possessed such a religion as a national property, though vitiated by exclusive-
ness, there had long been a Judaism which, penetrated by the Greek spirit, was, ex professo,
54 It would be a fruitful task, though as yet it has not been undertaken, to examine how long visions, dreams
and apocalypses, on the one hand, and the claim of speaking in the power and name of the Holy Spirit, on the
other, played a rôle in the early Church; and further to shew how they nearly died out among the laity, but
continued to live among the clergy and the monks, and how, even among the laity, there were again and again
sporadic outbreaks of them. The material which the first three centuries present is very great. Only a few may
he mentioned here: Ignat. ad. Rom. VII. 2: ad Philad VII. ad. Eph. XX. I. etc.: 1 Clem. LXIII. 2: Martyr. Polyc.:
Acta Perpet. et Felic: Tertull de animo XLVII.: “Major pæne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt.” Orig. c.
Celsum. 1. 46: πολλοὶ ὡσπερεὶ ἅκοντες προσεληλύθασι χριστιανισμῶ, πνεύματός τινός τρέψαντος . . . καὶ
φαντασιώσαντος αὐτοὺς ὕπαρ ἤ ὄναρ (even Arnobius was ostensibly led to Christianity by a dream). Cyprian
makes the most extensive use of dreams, visions, etc., in his letters, see for example Ep. XI. 3–5: XVI. 4 (“præter
nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens ætas, quæ in ecstasi
videt,” etc.); XXXIX. i: LXVI. Io (very interesting: “quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas
quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando
de Joseph fratres sui dixerunt: ecce somniator ille,” etc.). One who took part in the baptismal controversy in the
great Synod of Carthage writes, “secundum motum animi mei et spiritus Sancti.” The enthusiastic element was
always evoked with special power in times of persecution, as the genuine African matyrdoms, from the second
half of the third century, specially shew. Cf. especially the passio Jacobi, Mariani, etc. But where the enthusiasm
was not convenient it was called, as in the case of the Montanists, dæmonic. Even Constantine operated with
dreams and visions of Christ (see his Vita).
53
devoting itself to the task of bringing a new religion to the Greek world, the Jewish religion,
but that religion in its kernel Greek, that is, philosophically moulded, spiritualised and sec-
ularised. Here then was already consummated an intimate union of the Greek spirit with
the Old Testament religion, within the Empire and to a less degree in Palestine itself. If
everything is not to be dissolved into a grey mist, we must clearly distinguish this union
between Judaism and Hellenism and the spiritualising of religion it produced, from the
powerful but indeterminable influences which the Greek spirit exercised on all things Jewish,
and which have been a historical condition of the Gospel. The alliance, in my opinion, was
55
of no significance at all for the origin of the Gospel, but was of the most decided importance,
first, for the propagation of Christianity, and then, for the development of Christianity to
Catholicism, and for the genesis of the Catholic doctrine of faith.55 We cannot certainly
name any particular personality who was specially active in this, but we can mention three
facts which prove more than individual references. (1) The propaganda of Christianity in
the Diaspora followed the Jewish propaganda and partly took its place, that is, the Gospel
was at first preached to those Gentiles who were already acquainted with the general outlines
of the Jewish religion, and who were even frequently viewed as a Judaism of a second order,
in which Jewish and Greek elements had been united in a peculiar mixture. (2) The concep-
tion of the Old Testament, as we find it even in the earliest Gentile Christian teachers, the
method of spiritualising it, etc., agrees in the most surprising way with the methods which
were used by the Alexandrian Jews. (3) There are Christian documents in no small number
and of unknown origin, which completely agree in plan, in form and contents with Græco-
Jewish writings of the Diaspora, as for example, the Christian Sibylline Oracles, and the
pseudo-Justinian treatise, “de Monarchia.” There are numerous tractates of which it is im-
possible to say with certainty whether they are of Jewish or of Christian origin.
The Alexandrian and non-Palestinian Judaism is still Judaism. As the Gospel seized and
moved the whole of Judaism, it must also have been operative in the non-Palestinian Judaism. 56
But that already foreshadowed the transition of the Gospel to the non-Jewish Greek region,
and the fate which it was to experience there. For that non-Palestinian Judaism formed the
55 As to the first, the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” in its first moral part, shews a great affinity
with the moral philosophy which was set up by Alexandrian Jews and put before the Greek world as that which
had been revealed: see Massebieau, L’enseignement des XII. Apôtres. Paris. 1884, and in the Journal “Le Té-
moignage,” 7 Febr. 1885. Usener, in his Preface to the Ges. Abhandl. Jacob Bernays’, which he edited, 1885, p.
v. f., has, independently of Massebieau, pointed out the relationship of chapters 1-5 of the “Teaching of the
Apostles” with the Phocylidean poem (see Bernays’ above work, p. 192 ff.). Later Taylor “The teaching of the
twelve Apostles,” 1886, threw out the conjecture that the Didache had a Jewish foundation, and I reached the
same conclusion independently of him: see my Treatise: Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen beiden Wege, 1886.
54
bridge between the Jewish Church and the Roman Empire, together with its culture.56 The
Gospel passed into the world chiefly by this bridge. Paul indeed had a large share in this,
but his own Churches did not understand the way he led them, and were not able on looking
back to find it.57 He indeed became a Greek to the Greeks, and even began the undertaking
of placing the treasures of Greek knowledge at the service of the Gospel. But the knowledge
of Christ crucified, to which he subordinated all other knowledge as only of preparatory
57
value, had nothing in common with Greek philosophy, while the idea of justification and
the doctrine of the Spirit (Rom. VIII.), which together formed the peculiar contents of his
Christianity, were irreconcilable with the moralism and the religious ideals of Hellenism.
But the great mass of the earliest Gentile Christians became Christians because they perceived
in the Gospel the sure tidings of the benefits and obligations which they had already sought
56 It is well known that Judaism at the time of Christ embraced a great many different tendencies. Beside
Pharisaic Judaism as the stem proper, there was a motley mass of formations which resulted from the contact
of Judaism with foreign ideas, customs and institutions (even with Babylonian and Persian), and which attained
importance for the development of the predominant church, as well as for the formation of the so-called gnostic
Christian communions. Hellenic elements found their way even into Pharisaic theology. Orthodox Judaism itself
has marks which shew that no spiritual movement was able to escape the influence which proceeded from the
victory of the Greeks over the east. Besides, who would venture to exhibit definitely the origin and causes of
that spiritualising of religions and that limitation of the moral standard of which we can find so many traces in
the Alexandrian age? The nations who inhabited the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea, had from the fourth
century B. C., a common history, and therefore had similar convictions. Who can decide what each of them
acquired by its own exertions, and what it obtained through interchange of opinions? But in proportion as we
see this we must be on our guard against jumbling the phenomena together and effacing them. There is little
meaning in calling a thing Hellenic, as that really formed an element in all the phenomena of the age. All our
great political and ecclesiastical parties to-day are dependent on the ideas of 1789, and again on romantic ideas.
It is just as easy to verify this as it is difficult to determine the measure and the manner of the influence for each
group. And yet the understanding of it turns altogether on this point. To call Pharisaism, or the Gospel, or the
old Jewish Christianity Hellenic, is not paradox, but confusion.
57 The Acts of the Apostles is in this respect a most instructive book. It, as well as the Gospel of Luke, is a
document of Gentile christianity developing itself to Catholicism: Cf. Overbeck in his Commentar z. Apostelgesch.
But the comprehensive judgment of Havet (in the work above mentioned, IV. p. 395 is correct. “L’hellénisme
tient assez peu de place clans le N. T., du moins l’hellénisme voulu et réfléchi. Ces livres sont écrits en grec et
leurs auteurs vivaient en pays grec; il y a donc eu chez eux infiltration des idées et des sentiments helléniques;
quelquefois même l’imagination hellénique y a pénétré comme dans le 3 évangile et dans les Actes . . . . Dans
son ensemble, le N. T. garde le caractère d’un livre hébraïque Le christianisme ne commence avoir une littérature
et des doctrines vraiment helléniques qu’au milieu du second siècle. Mais il y avait un judaïsme, celui d’Alexandrie,
qui avait faite alliance avec 1’hellénisme avant même qu’il y eût des chrétiens.”
55
in the fusion of Jewish and Greek elements. It is only by discerning this that we can grasp
the preparation and genesis of the Catholic Church and its dogma.
From the foregoing statements it appears that there fall to be considered as presuppos-
itions of the origin of the Catholic Apostolic doctrine of faith, the following topics, though
of unequal importance as regards the extent of their influence.
(a). The Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(b). The common preaching of Jesus Christ in the first generation of believers.
(c). The current exposition of the Old Testament, the Jewish speculations and hopes of
the future, in their significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching.58
(d). The religious conceptions, and the religious philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews, in
their significance for the later restatement of the Gospel.
(e). The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans of the first two centuries, and
the current Græco-Roman philosophy of religion.
§ 2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own testimony concerning Himself.
I. The Fundamental Features. 58
The Gospel entered into the world as an apocalyptic eschatological message, apocalyptical
and eschatological not only in its form, but also in its contents. But Jesus announced that
the kingdom of God had already begun with his own work, and those who received him in
faith became sensible of this beginning; for the “apocalyptical” was not merely the unveiling
of the future, but above all the revelation of God as the Father, and the “eschatological” re-
ceived its counterpoise in the view of Jesus’ work as Saviour, in the assurance of being cer-
tainly called to the kingdom, and in the conviction that life and future dominion is hid with
God the Lord and preserved for believers by him. Consequently, we are following not only
the indications of the succeeding history, but also the requirement of the thing itself, when,
in the presentation of the Gospel, we place in the foreground, not that which unites it with
the contemporary disposition of Judaism, but that which raises it above it. Instead of the
hope of inheriting the kingdom, Jesus had also spoken simply of preserving the soul, or the
life. In this one substitution lies already a transformation of universal significance, of polit-
ical religion into a religion that is individual and therefore holy; for the life is nourished by
the word of God, but God is the Holy One.
The Gospel is the glad message of the government of the world and of every individual
soul by the almighty and holy God, the Father and Judge. In this dominion of God, which
frees men from the power of the Devil, makes them rulers in a heavenly kingdom in contrast
58 The right of distinguishing (b) and (c) may be contested. But if we surrender this we therewith surrender
the right to distinguish kernel and husk in the original proclamation of the Gospel. The dangers to which the
attempt is exposed should not frighten us from it, for it has its justification in the fact that the Gospel is neither
doctrine nor law.
56
with the kingdoms of the world, and which will also be sensibly realised in the future on
just about to appear, is secured life for all men who yield themselves to God, although they
should lose the world and the earthly life. That is, the soul which is pure and holy in connec-
tion with God, and in imitation of the Divine perfection is eternally preserved with God,
while those who would gain the world and preserve their life, fall into the hands of the Judge
who sentences them to Hell. This dominion of God imposes on men a law, an old and yet
59
a new law, viz., that of the Divine perfection and therefore of undivided love to God and to
our neighbour. In this love, where it sways the inmost feeling, is presented the better right-
eousness (better not only with respect to the Scribes and Pharisees, but also with respect to
Moses, see Matt. V.), which corresponds to the perfection of God. The way to attain it is a
change of mind, that is, self-denial, humility before God, and heartfelt trust in him. In this
humility and trust in God there is contained a recognition of one’s own unworthiness; but
the Gospel calls to the kingdom of God those very sinners who are thus minded, by promising
the forgiveness of the sins which hitherto have separated them from God. But the Gospel
which appears in these three elements, the dominion of God, a better righteousness embodied
in the law of love, and the forgiveness of sin, is inseparably connected with Jesus Christ; for
in preaching this Gospel Jesus Christ everywhere calls men to himself. In him the Gospel
is word and deed; it has become his food, and therefore his personal life, and into this life
of his he draws all others. He is the Son who knows the Father. In him men are to perceive
the kindness of the Lord; in him they are to feel God’s power and government of the world,
and to become certain of this consolation; they are to follow him the meek and lowly, and
while he, the pure and holy one, calls sinners to himself, they are to receive the assurance
that God through him forgiveth sin.
Jesus Christ has by no express statement thrust this connection of his Gospel with his
Person into the foreground. No words could have certified it unless his life, the overpowering
impression of his Person, had created it. By living, acting and speaking from the riches of
that life which he lived with his Father, he became for others the revelation of the God of
whom they formerly had heard, but whom they had not known. He declared his Father to
be their Father and they understood him. But he also declared himself to be Messiah, and
in so doing gave an intelligible expression to his abiding significance for them and for his
people. In a solemn hour at the close of his life, as well as on special occasions at an earlier
60
period, he referred to the fact that the surrender to his Person which induced them to leave
all and follow him, was no passing element in the new position they had gained towards
God the Father. He tells them, on the contrary, that this surrender corresponds to the service
which he will perform for them and for the many, when he will give his life a sacrifice for
the sins of the world. By teaching them to think of him and of his death in the breaking of
bread and the drinking of wine, and by saying of his death that it takes place for the remission
of sins, he has claimed as his due from all future disciples what was a matter of course so
57
long as he sojourned with them, but what might fade away after he was parted from them.
He who in his preaching of the kingdom of God raised the strictest self-examination and
humility to a law, and exhibited them to his followers in his own life, has described with
clear consciousness his life crowned by death as the imperishable service by which men in
all ages will be cleansed from their sin and made joyful in their God. By so doing he put
himself far above all others, although they were to become his brethren; and claimed a
unique and permanent importance as Redeemer and Judge. This permanent importance as
the Lord he secured, not by disclosures about the mystery of his Person, but by the impression
of his life and the interpretation of his death. He interprets it, like all his sufferings, as a
victory, as the passing over to his glory, and in spite of the cry of God-forsakenness upon
the cross, he has proved himself able to awaken in his followers the real conviction that he
lives and is Lord and Judge of the living and the dead.
The religion of the Gospel is based on this belief in Jesus Christ, that is, by looking to
him, this historical person, it becomes certain to the believer that God rules heaven and
earth, and that God, the Judge, is also Father and Redeemer. The religion of the Gospel is
the religion which makes the highest moral demands, the simplest and the most difficult,
and discloses the contradiction in which every man finds himself towards them. But it also
procures redemption from such misery, by drawing the life of men into the inexhaustible
61
and blessed life of Jesus Christ, who has overcome the world and called sinners to himself.
In making this attempt to put together the fundamental features of the Gospel, I have
allowed myself to be guided by the results of this Gospel in the case of the first disciples. I
do not know whether it is permissible to present such fundamental features apart from this
guidance. The preaching of Jesus Christ was in the main so plain and simple, and in its ap-
plication so manifold and rich, that one shrinks from attempting to systematise it, and would
much rather merely narrate according to the Gospel. Jesus searches for the point in every
man on which he can lay hold of him and lead him to the Kingdom of God. The distinction
of good and evil—for God or against God—he would make a life question for every man,
in order to shew him for whom it has become this, that he can depend upon the God whom
he is to fear. At the same time he did not by any means uniformly fall back upon sin, or even
the universal sinfulness, but laid hold of individuals very diversely, and led them to God by
different paths. The doctrinal concentration of redemption on sin was certainly not carried
out by Paul alone; but, on the other hand, it did not in any way become the prevailing form
for the preaching of the Gospel. On the contrary, the antitheses, night, error, dominion of
demons, death and light, truth, deliverance, life, proved more telling in the Gentile Churches.
The consciousness of universal sinfulness was first made the negative fundamental frame
of mind of Christendom by Augustine.
II. Details.
58
1. Jesus announced the Kingdom of God which stands in opposition to the kingdom of
the devil, and therefore also to the kingdom of the world, as a future Kingdom, and yet it is
presented in his preaching as present; as an invisible, and yet it was visible—for one actually
saw it. He lived and spoke within the circle of eschatological ideas which Judaism had de-
veloped more than two hundred years before: but he controlled them by giving them a new
62
content and forcing them into a new direction. Without abrogating the law and the prophets
he, on fitting occasions, broke through the national, political and sensuous eudæmonistic
forms in which the nation was expecting the realisation of the dominion of God, but turned
their attention at the same time to a future near at hand, in which believers would be delivered
from the oppression of evil and sin, and would enjoy blessedness and dominion. Yet he
declared that even now, every individual who is called into the kingdom may call on God
as his Father, and be sure of the gracious will of God, the hearing of his prayers, the forgive-
ness of sin. and the protection of God even in this present life.59 But everything in this
proclamation is directed to the life beyond: the certainty of that life is the power and earn-
estness of the Gospel.
2. The conditions of entrance to the kingdom are, in the first place, a complete change
of mind, in which a man renounces the pleasures of this world, denies himself, and is ready
to surrender all that he has in order to save his soul; then, a believing trust in God’s grace
which he grants to the humble and the poor, and therefore hearty confidence in Jesus as the
Messiah chosen and called by God to realise his kingdom on the earth. The announcement
is therefore directed to the poor, the suffering, those hungering and thirsting for righteous-
ness, not to those who live, but to those who wish to be healed and redeemed, and finds
them prepared for entrance into, and reception of the blessings of the kingdom of God,60
while it brings down upon the self-satisfied, the rich and those proud of their righteousness,
the judgment of obduracy and the damnation of Hell.
63
59 Therewith are, doubtless, heavenly blessings bestowed in the present. Historical investigation has, notwith-
standing, every reason for closely examining, whether, and in how far, we may speak of a present for the Kingdom
of God, in the sense of Jesus. But even if the question had to be answered in the negative, it would make little
or no difference for the correct understanding of Jesus’ preaching. The Gospel viewed in its kernel is independent
of this question. It deals with the inner constitution and mood of the soul.
60 The question whether, and in what degree, a man of himself can earn righteousness before God is one of
those theoretic questions to which Jesus gave no answer. He fixed his attention on all the gradations of the
moral and religious conduct of his countrymen as they were immediately presented to him, and found some
prepared for entrance into the kingdom of God, not by a technical mode of outward preparation, but by hun-
gering and thirsting for it, and at the same time unselfishly serving their brethren. Humility and love unfeigned
were always the decisive marks of these prepared ones. They are to be satisfied with righteousness before God,
that is, are to receive the blessed feeling that God is gracious to them as sinners, and accepts them as his children.
59
3. The commandment of undivided love to God and the brethren, as the main command-
ment, in the observance of which righteousness is realised, and forming the antithesis to
the selfish mind, the lust of the world, and every arbitrary impulse,61 corresponds to the
blessings of the Kingdom of God, viz., forgiveness of sin, righteousness, dominion and
blessedness. The standard of personal worth for the members of the Kingdom is self-sacri-
ficing labour for others, not any technical mode of worship or legal preciseness. Renunciation
of the world together with its goods, even of life itself in certain circumstances, is the proof
of a man’s sincerity and earnestness in seeking the Kingdom of God; and the meekness.
which renounces every right, bears wrong patiently, requiting it with kindness, is the prac-
tical proof of love to God, the conduct that answers to God’s perfection.
4. In the proclamation and founding of this kingdom, Jesus summoned men to attach
themselves to him, because he had recognised himself to be the helper called by God, and
therefore also the Messiah who was promised.62 He gradually declared himself to the people
as such by the names he assumed,63 for the names “Anointed,” “King,” “Lord,” “Son of
David,” “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” all denote the Messianic office, and were familiar to
the greater part of the people.64 But though, at first, they express only the call, office, and
64
Jesus, however, allows the popular distinction of sinners and righteous to remain, but exhibits its perverseness
by calling sinners to himself, and by describing the opposition of the righteous to his Gospel as a mark of their
godlessness and hardness of heart.
61 The blessings of the kingdom were frequently represented by Jesus as a reward for work done. But this
popular view is again broken through by reference to the fact that all reward is the gift of God’s free grace.
62 Some Critics—most recently Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines, 1884. T. IV. p. 15 ff.—have called in
question the fact that Jesus called himself Messiah. But this article of the Evangelic tradition seems to me to
stand the test of the most minute investigation. But, in the case of Jesus, the consciousness of being the Messiah
undoubtedly rested on the certainty of being the Son of God, therefore of knowing the Father and being con-
strained to proclaim that knowledge.
63 We can gather with certainty from the Gospels that Jesus did not enter on his work with the announcement:
Believe in me for I am the Messiah. On the contrary, he connected his work with the baptising movement of
John, but carried that movement further, and thereby made the Baptist his forerunner (Mark I. 15: πεπλήρωται
ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἤ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίω). He was in no hurry to
urge anything that went beyond that message, but gradually prepared, and cautiously required of his followers
an advance beyond it. The goal to which he led them was to believe in him as Messiah without putting the usual
political construction on the Messianic ideal.
64 Even “Son of Man” probably means Messiah: we do not know whether Jesus had any special reason for
favouring this designation which springs from Dan. VII. The objection to interpreting the word as Messiah
really resolves itself into this, that the disciples (according to the Gospels) did not at once recognise him as
Messiah. But that is explained by the contrast of his own peculiar idea of Messiah with the popular idea. The
60
power of the Messiah, yet by means of them and especially by the designation Son of God,
Jesus pointed to a relation to God the Father, then and in its immediateness unique, as the
basis of the office with which he was entrusted. He has, however, given no further explanation
of the mystery of this relation than the declaration that the Son alone knoweth the Father,
and that this knowledge of God and Sonship to God are secured for all others by the sending
of the Son.65 In the proclamation of God as Father,66 as well as in the other proclamation
that all the members of the kingdom following the will of God in love, are to become one
with the Son and through him with the Father,67 the message of the realised kingdom of
65
God receives its richest, inexhaustible content: the Son of the Father will be the first-born
among many brethren.
5. Jesus as the Messiah chosen by God has definitely distinguished himself from Moses
and all the Prophets: as his preaching and his work are the fulfilment of the law and the
prophets, so he himself is not a disciple of Moses, but corrects that law-giver; he is not a
Prophet, but Master and Lord. He proves this Lordship during his earthly ministry in the
accomplishment of the mighty deeds given him to do, above all in withstanding the Devil
confession of him as Messiah was the keystone of their confidence in him, inasmuch as by that confession they
separated themselves from old ideas.
65 The distinction between the Father and the Son stands out just as plainly in the sayings of Jesus, as the
complete obedient subordination of the Son to the Father. Even according to John’s Gospel, Jesus finishes the
work which the Father has given him, and is obedient in everything even unto death. He declares Mat. XIX. 17:
εἱς̂ ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. Special notice should be given to Mark XIII. 32, (Matt. XXIV, 36). Behind the only manifested
life of Jesus, later speculation has put a life in which he wrought, not in subordination and obedience, but in
like independence and dignity with God. That goes beyond the utterances of Jesus even in the fourth Gospel.
But it is no advance beyond these, especially in the religious view and speech of the time, when it is announced
that the relation of the Father to the Son lies beyond time. It is not even improbable that the sayings in the fourth
Gospel referring to this, have a basis in the preaching of Jesus himself.
66 Paul knew that the designation of God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was the new Evangelic con-
fession. Origen was the first among the Fathers (though before him Marcion) to recognise that the decisive advance
beyond the Old Testament stage of religion, was given in the preaching of God as Father; see the exposition of
the Lord’s Prayer in his treatise De oratione. No doubt the Old Testament, and the later Judaism knew the des-
ignation of God as Father; but it applied it to the Jewish nation, it did not attach the evangelic meaning to the
name, and it did not allow itself in any way to be guided in its religion by this idea.
67 See the farewell discourses in John, the fundamental ideas of which are, in my opinion, genuine, that is,
proceed from Jesus.
61
and his kingdom,68 and—according to the law of the Kingdom of God—for that very reason
in the service which he performs. In this service Jesus also reckoned the sacrifice of his life,
designating it as a “λύτρν” which he offered for the redemption of man.69 But he declared
66
68 The historian cannot regard a miracle as a sure given historical event: for in doing so he destroys the mode
of consideration on which all historical investigation rests. Every individual miracle remains historically quite
doubtful, and a summation of things doubtful never leads to certainty. But should the historian, notwithstanding,
be convinced that Jesus Christ did extraordinary things, in the strict sense miraculous things, then, from the
unique impression he has obtained of this person, he infers the possession by him of supernatural power. This
conclusion itself belongs to the province of religious faith: though there has seldom been a strong faith which
would not have drawn it. Moreover, the healing miracles of Jesus are the only ones that come into consideration
in a strict historical examination. These certainly cannot be eliminated from the historical accounts without
utterly destroying them. But how unfit are they of themselves, after 1800 years, to secure any special importance
to him to whom they are attributed, unless that importance was already established apart from them. That he
could do with him-self what he would, that he created a new thing without overturning the old, that he won
men to himself by announcing the Father, that he inspired without fanaticism, set up a kingdom without politics,
set men free from the world without asceticism, was a teacher without theology, at a time of fanaticism and
politics, asceticism and theology, is the great miracle of his person, and that he who preached the Sermon on
the Mount declared himself in respect of his life and death, to be the Redeemer and Judge of the world, is the
offence and foolishness which mock all reason.
69 See Mark X. 45—That Jesus at the celebration of the first Lord’s supper described his death as a sacrifice
which he should offer for the forgiveness of sin, is clear from the account of Paul. From that account it appears
to be certain that Jesus gave expression to the idea of the necessity and saving significance of his death for the
forgiveness of sins, in a symbolical ordinance (based on the conclusion of the covenant, Exod. XXIV. 3 ff., perhaps,
as Paul presupposes, on the Passover), in order that his disciples by repeating it in accordance with the will of
Jesus, might be the more deeply impressed by it. Certain observations based on John VI., on the supper prayer
in the Didache, nay, even on the report of Mark, and supported at the same time by features of the earliest
practice in which it had the character of a real meal, and the earliest theory of the supper, which viewed it as a
communication of eternal life and an anticipation of the future existence, have for years made me doubt very
much whether the Pauline account and the Pauline conception of it, were really either the oldest, or the universal
and therefore only one. I have been strengthened in this suspicion by the profound and remarkable investigation
of Spitta (z. Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums: Die urchristl. Traditionen ü. den Urspr. u. Sinnd. Abendmahls,
1893). He sees in the supper as not instituted, but celebrated by Jesus, the festival of the Messianic meal, the
anticipated triumph over death, the expression of the perfection of the Messianic work, the symbolic represent-
ation of the filling of believers with the powers of the Messianic kingdom and life. The reference to the Passover
and the death of Christ was attached to it later, though it is true very soon. How much is thereby explained that
was hitherto obscure—critical, historical, and dogmatico-historical questions—cannot at all be stated briefly.
And yet I hesitate to give a full recognition to Spitta’s exposition: the words I. Cor. XI. 23: ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον
62
at the same time that his Messianic work was not yet fulfilled in his subjection to death. On
the contrary, the close is merely initiated by his death; for the completion of the kingdom
will only appear when he returns in glory in the clouds of heaven to judgment. Jesus seems
to have announced this speedy return a short time before his death, and to have comforted
his disciples at his departure, with the assurance that he would immediately enter into a
supramundane position with God.70
6. The instructions of Jesus to his disciples are accordingly dominated by the thought
67
that the end,—the day and hour of which, however, no one knows,—is at hand. In con-
sequence of this, also, the exhortation to renounce all earthly good takes a prominent place.
But Jesus does not impose ascetic commandments as a new law, far less does he see in asceti-
cism, as such, sanctification71—he himself did not live as an ascetic, but was reproached as
a wine-bibber—but he prescribed a perfect simplicity and purity of disposition, and a
singleness of heart which remains invariably the same in trouble and renunciation, in pos-
session and use of earthly good. A uniform equality of all in the conduct of life is not com-
manded: “To whom much is given, of him much shall be required.” The disciples are kept
as far from fanaticism and overrating of spiritual results as from asceticism. “Rejoice not
that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” When
they besought him to teach them to pray, he taught them the “Lord’s prayer”, a prayer which
demands such a collected mind, and such a tranquil, childlike elevation of the heart to God,
that it cannot be offered at all by minds subject to passion or preoccupied by any daily cares.
7. Jesus himself did not found a new religious community, but gathered round him a
circle of disciples, and chose Apostles whom he commanded to preach the Gospel. His
preaching was universalistic inasmuch as it attributed no value to ceremonialism as such,
and placed the fulfilment of the Mosaic law in the exhibition of its moral contents, partly
against or beyond the letter. He made the law perfect by harmonising its particular require-
ments with the fundamental moral requirements which were also expressed in the Mosaic
68
ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ., are too strong for me. Cf. besides, Weizsäcker’s investigation in
“The Apostolic Age.” Lobstein, La doctrine de la s. cène, 1889. A. Harnack i. d. Texten u. Unters. VII. 2 p. 139
if. Schürer, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, p. 29 if. Jülicher Abhandl. f. Weizsäker, 1892, p. 215 ff.
70 With regard to the eschatology, no one can say in detail what proceeds from Jesus, and what from the dis-
ciples. What has been said in the text does not claim to be certain, but only probable. The most important, and
at the same time the most certain point, is that Jesus made the definitive fate of the individual depend on faith,
humility and love. There are no passages in the Gospel which conflict with the impression that Jesus reserved
day and hour to God, and wrought in faith and patience as long as for him it was day.
71 He did not impose on every one, or desire from every one even the outward following of himself: see Mark
V. 18-19. The “imitation of Jesus,” in the strict sense of the word, did not play any noteworthy role either in the
Apostolic or in the old Catholic period.
63
law. He emphasised the fundamental requirements more decidedly than was done by the
law itself, and taught that all details should be referred to them and deduced from them.
The external righteousness of Pharisaism was thereby declared to be not only an outer
covering, but also a fraud, and the bond which still united religion and nationality in Judaism
was sundered.72 Political and national elements may probably have been made prominent
in the hopes of the future, as Jesus appropriated them for his preaching. But from the con-
ditions to which the realising of the hopes for the individual was attached, there already
69
72 It is asserted by well-informed investigators, and may be inferred from the Gospels (Mark XII. 32–34; Luke
X. 27, 28), perhaps also from the Jewish original of the Didache, that some representatives of Pharisaism, beside
the pedantic treatment of the law, attempted to concentrate it on the fundamental moral commandments.
Consequently, in Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism at the time of Christ, in virtue of the prophetic word and
the Thora, influenced also, perhaps, by the Greek spirit which everywhere gave the stimulus to inwardness, the
path was indicated in which the future development of religion was to follow. Jesus entered fully into the view
of the law thus attempted, which comprehended it as a whole and traced it back to the disposition. But he freed
it from the contradiction that adhered to it, (because, in spite of and alongside the tendency to a deeper perception,
men still persisted in deducing righteousness from a punctilious observance of numerous particular command-
ments, because in so doing they became self-satisfied, that is, irreligious, and because in belonging to Abraham,
they thought they had a claim of right on God). For all that, so far as a historical understanding of the activity
of Jesus is at all possible, it is to be obtained from the soil of Pharisaism, as the Pharisees were those who cherished
and developed the Messianic expectations, and because, along with their care for the Thora, they sought also to
preserve, in their own way, the prophetic inheritance. If everything does not deceive us, there were already
contained in the Pharisaic theology of the age, speculations which were fitted to modify considerably the narrow
view of history, and to prepare for universalism. The very men who tithed mint, anise and cummin, who kept
their cups and dishes outwardly clean, who, hedging round the Thora, attempted to hedge round the people,
spoke also of the sum total of the law. They made room in their theology for new ideas which are partly to be
described as advances, and on the other hand, they have already pondered the question even in relation to the
law, whether submission to its main contents was not sufficient for being numbered among the people of the
covenant (see Renan: Paul). In particular the whole sacrificial system, which Jesus also essentially ignored, was
therewith thrust into the background. Baldensperger (Selbstbewusstsein Jesu. p. 46) justly says, “There lie before
us definite marks that the certainty of the nearness of God in the Temple (from the time of the Maccabees) begins
to waver, and the efficacy of the temple institutions to be called in question. Its recent desecration by the Romans,
appears to the author of the Psalms of Solomon (II. 2) as a kind of Divine requital for the sons of Israel themselves
having been guilty of so grossly profaning the sacrificial gifts. Enoch calls the shewbread of the second Temple
polluted and unclean . . . There had crept in among the pious a feeling of the insufficiency of their worship, and
from this side the Essenic schism will certainly represent only the open outbreak of a disease which had already
begun to gnaw secretly at the religious life of the nation”: see here the excellent explanations of the origin of
Essenism in Lucius (Essenism, 75 ff. 509 ff.). The spread of Judaism in the world, the secularization and apostacy
64
shone the clearer ray which was to eclipse those elements, and one saying such as Matt.
of the priestly caste, the desecration of the Temple, the building of the Temple at Leontopolis, the perception
brought about by the spiritualising of religion in the empire of Alexander the Great, that no blood of beasts can
be a means of reconciling God—all these circumstances must have been absolutely dangerous and fatal, both
to the local centralisation of worship, and to the statutory sacrificial system. The proclamation of Jesus (and of
Stephen) as to the overthrow of the Temple, is therefore no absolutely new thing, nor is the fact that Judaism
fell back upon the law and the Messianic hope, a mere result of the destruction of the Temple. This change was
rather prepared by the inner development. Whatever point in the preaching of Jesus we may fix on, we shall
find, that—apart from the writings of the Prophets and the Psalms, which originated in the Greek Maccabean
periods—parallels can be found only in Pharisaism, but at the same time that the sharpest contrasts must issue
from it. Talmudic Judaism is not in every respect the genuine continuance of Pharisaic Judaism, but a product
of the decay which attests that the rejection of Jesus by the spiritual leaders of the people had deprived the nation
and even the Virtuosi of Religion of their best part: (see for this the expositions of Kuenen “Judaismus und
Christenthum,” in his (Hibbert) lectures on national religions and world religions). The ever recurring attempts
to deduce the origin of Christianity from Hellenism, or even from the Roman Greek culture, are there also
rightly, briefly and tersely rejected. Also the hypotheses, which either entirely eliminate the person of Jesus or
make him an Essene, or subordinate him to the person of Paul, may be regarded as definitively settled. Those
who think they can ascertain the origin of Christian religion from the origin of Christian Theology will indeed
always think of Hellenism: Paul will eclipse the person of Jesus with those who believe that a religion for the
world must be born with a universalistic doctrine. Finally, Essenism will continue in authority with those who
see in the position of indifference which Jesus took to the Temple worship, the main thing, and who, besides,
create for themselves an “Essenism of their own finding.” Hellenism, and also Essenism, can of course indicate
to the historian some of the conditions by which the appearance of Jesus was prepared and rendered possible;
but they explain only the possibility, not the reality of the appearance. But this with its historically not deducible
power is the decisive thing. If some one has recently said that “the historical speciality of the person of Jesus” is
not the main thing in Christianity; he has thereby betrayed that he does not know how a religion that is worthy
of the name is founded, propagated, and maintained. For the latest attempt to put the Gospel in a historical
connection with Buddhism (Seydel. Das Ev. von Jesus in seinem Verhältnissen zur Buddha-Sage, 1882: likewise,
Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu, 1884), see, Oldenburg, Theol. Lit.-Ztg. 1882, Col. 415 f.; 1884, 185 f.
However much necessarily remains obscure to us in the ministry of Jesus when we seek to place it in a historical
connection, what is known is sufficient to confirm the judgment that his preaching developed a germ in the re-
ligion of Israel (see the Psalms) which was finally guarded and in many respects developed by the Pharisees, but
which languished and died under their guardianship. The power of development which Jesus imported to it was
not a power which he himself had to borrow from without; but doctrine and speculation were as far from him
as ecstasy and visions. On the other hand, we must remember we do not know the history of Jesus up to his
public entrance on his ministry, and that therefore we do not know whether in his native province he had any
connection with Greeks.
65
XXII. 31., annulled at once political religion and religious politics.

Supplement 1.—The idea of the inestimable inherent value of every individual human
soul, already dimly appearing in several psalms, and discerned by Greek Philosophers, 70
though as a rule developed in contradiction to religion, stands out plainly in the preaching
of Jesus. It is united with the idea of God as Father, and is the complement to the message
of the communion of brethren realising itself in love. In this sense the Gospel is at once
profoundly individualistic and Socialistic. The prospect of gaining life, and preserving it for
ever, is therefore also the highest which Jesus has set forth; it is not, however, to be a motive,
but a reward of grace. In the certainty of this prospect, which is the converse of renouncing
the world, he has proclaimed the sure hope of the resurrection, and consequently the most
abundant compensation for the loss of the natural life. Jesus put an end to the vacillation
and uncertainty which in this respect still prevailed among the Jewish people of his day. The
confession of the Psalmist, “Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon the
earth that I desire beside thee”, and the fulfilling of the Old Testament commandment,
“Love thy neighbour as thyself”, were for the first time presented in their connection in the
person of Jesus. He himself therefore is Christianity, for the “impression of his person con-
vinced the disciples of the facts of forgiveness of sin and the second birth, and gave them
courage to believe in and to lead a new life”. We cannot therefore state the “doctrine” of
Jesus; for it appears as a supramundane life which must be felt in the person of Jesus, and
71
its truth is guaranteed by the fact that such a life can be lived.
Supplement 2.—The history of the Gospel contains two great transitions, both of which,
however, fall within the first century; from Christ to the first generation of believers, including
Paul, and from the first, Jewish Christian, generation of these believers to the Gentile
Christians; in other words, from Christ to the brotherhood of believers in Christ, and from
this to the incipient Catholic Church. No later transitions in the Church can be compared
with these in importance. As to the first, the question has frequently been asked, Is the
Gospel of Christ to be the authority or the Gospel concerning Christ? But the strict dilemma
here is false. The Gospel certainly is the Gospel of Christ. For it has only, in the sense of Jesus,
fulfilled its Mission when the Father has been declared to men as he was known by the Son,
and where the life is swayed by the realities and principles which ruled the life of Jesus Christ.
But it is in accordance with the mind of Jesus and at the same time a fact of history, that
this Gospel can only be appropriated and adhered to in connection with a believing surrender
to the person of Jesus Christ. Yet every dogmatic formula is suspicious, be-cause it is fitted
to wound the spirit of religion; it should not at least be put before the living experience in
order to evoke it; for such a procedure is really the admission of the half belief which thinks
it necessary that the impression made by the person must be supplemented. The essence of
the matter is a personal life which awakens life around it as the fire of one torch kindles
another. Early as weakness of faith is in the Church of Christ, it is no earlier than the pro-
66
cedure of making a formulated and ostensibly proved confession the foundation of faith,
and therefore demanding, above all, subjection to this confession. Faith assuredly is
propagated by the testimony of faith, but dogma is not in itself that testimony.
The peculiar character of the Christian religion is conditioned by the fact that every
reference to God is at the same time a reference to Jesus Christ, and vice versa. In this sense
the Person of Christ is the central point of the religion, and inseparably united with the
72
substance of piety as a sure reliance on God. Such a union does not, as is supposed, bring a
foreign element into the pure essence of religion. The pure essence of religion rather demands
such a union; for “the reverence for persons, the inner bowing before the manifestation of
moral power and goodness is the root of all true religion” (W. Herrmann). But the Christian
religion knows and names only one name before which it bows. In this rests its positive
character, in all else, as piety, it is by its strictly spiritual and inward attitude, not a positive
religion alongside of others, but religion itself. But just because the Person of Christ has this
significance is the knowledge and understanding of the “historical Christ” required: for no
other comes within the sphere of our knowledge. “The historical Christ” that, to be sure, is
not the powerless Christ of contemporary history shewn to us through a coloured biograph-
ical medium, or dissipated in all sorts of controversies, but Christ as a power and as a life
which towers above our own life, and enters into our life as God's Spirit and God's Word,
(see Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott. 2. Edit. 1892, [i. e., “The Fellowship of
the Christian with God”, an important work included in the present series of translations.
Ed.]: Kähler, Der sog. historische Jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus, 1892).
But historical labour and investigation are needed in order to grasp this Jesus Christ ever
more firmly and surely.
As to the second transition, it brought with it the most important changes, which,
however, became clearly manifest only after the lapse of some generations. They appear,
first, in the belief in holy consecrations, efficacious in themselves, and administered by
chosen persons; further, in the conviction, that the relation of the individual to God and
Christ is, above all, conditioned on the acceptance of a definite divinely attested law of faith
and holy writings; further, in the opinion that God has established Church arrangements,
observance of which is necessary and meritorious, as well as in the opinion that a visible
earthly community is the people of a new covenant. These assumptions, which formally
constitute the essence of Catholicism as a religion, have no support in the teaching of Jesus,
73
nay, offend against that teaching.
Supplement 3.—The question as to what new thing Christ has brought, answered by
Paul in the words, “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away,
behold all things are become new”, has again and again been pointedly put since the middle
of the second century by Apologists, Theologians and religious Philosophers within and
without the Church, and has received the most varied answers. Few of the answers have
67
reached the height of the Pauline confession. But where one cannot attain to this confession,
one ought to make clear to oneself that every answer which does not lie in the line of it is
altogether unsatisfactory; for it is not difficult to set over against every article from the
preaching of Jesus an observation which deprives it of its originality. It is the Person, it is
the fact of his life that is new and creates the new. The way in which he called forth and es-
tablished a people of God on earth, which has become sure of God and of eternal life; the
way in which he set up a new thing in the midst of the old and transformed the religion of
Israel into the religion: that is the mystery of his Person, in which lies his unique and per-
manent position in the history of humanity.
Supplement 4.—The conservative position of Jesus towards the religious traditions of
his people had the necessary result that his preaching and his Person were placed by believers
in the frame-work of this tradition, which was thereby very soon greatly expanded. But,
though this way of understanding the Gospel was certainly at first the only possible way,
and though the Gospel itself could only be preserved by such means (see § 1), yet it cannot
be mistaken that a displacement in the conception of the Person and preaching of Jesus,
and a burdening of religious faith, could not but forthwith set in, from which developments
followed, the premises of which would be vainly sought for in the words of the Lord (see
§§ § 3, 4). But here the question arises as to whether the Gospel is not inseparably connected
with the eschatological world-renouncing element with which it entered into the world, so
74
that its being is destroyed where this is omitted. A few words may be devoted to this question.
The Gospel possesses properties which oppose every positive religion, because they depre-
ciate it, and these properties form the kernel of the Gospel. The disposition which is devoted
to God, humble, ardent and sincere in its love to God and to the brethren, is as an abiding
habit, law, and at the same time a gift of the Gospel, and also finally exhausts it. This quiet,
peaceful element was at the beginning strong and vigorous, even in those who lived in the
world of ecstasy and expected the world to come. One may be named for all, Paul. He who
wrote I. Cor. XIII. and Rom. VIII. should not, in spite of all that he has said elsewhere, be
called upon to witness that the nature of the Gospel is exhausted in its world-renouncing,
ecstatic and eschatological elements, or at least that it is so inseparable united with these as
to fall along with them. He who wrote those chapters, and the greater than he who promised
the kingdom of heaven to children and to those who were hungering and thirsting for
righteousness, he to whom tradition ascribes the words: “Rejoice not that the spirits are
subject to you. but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven”—both attest that
the Gospel lies above the antagonisms between this world and the next, work and retirement
from the world, reason and ecstasy, Judaism and Hellenism. And because it lies above them
it may be united with either, as it originally unfolded its powers under the ruins of the Jewish
religion. But still more; it not only can enter into union with them, it must do so if it is
other-wise the religion of the living and is itself living. It has only one aim; that man may
68
find God and have him as his own God, in order to gain in him humility and patience, peace,
joy and love. How it reaches this goal through the advancing centuries, whether with the
co-efficients of Judaism or Hellenism, of renunciation of the world or of culture, of mysticism
or the doctrine of predestination, of Gnosticism or Agnosticism, and whatever other incrust-
ations there may yet be which can defend the kernel, and under which alone living elements
can grow—all that belongs to the centuries. However each individual Christian may reckon
75
to the treasure itself the earthly vessel in which he hides his treasure; it is the duty and the
right, not only of the religious, but also of the historical estimate to distinguish between the
vessel and the treasure; for the Gospel did not enter into the world as a positive statutory
religion, and cannot therefore have its classic manifestation in any form of its intellectual
or social types, not even in the first. It is therefore the duty of the historian of the first century
of the Church, as well as that of those which follow, not to be content with fixing the changes
of the Christian religion, but to examine how far the new forms were capable of defending,
propagating and impressing the Gospel itself. It would probably have perished if the forms
of primitive Christianity had been scrupulously maintained in the Church; but now primitive
Christianity has perished in order that the Gospel might be preserved. To study this progress
of the development, and fix the significance of the newly received forms for the kernel of
the matter, is the last and highest task of the historian who himself lives in his subject. He
who approaches from without must be satisfied with the general view that in the history of
the Church some things have always remained, and other things have always been changing.
Literature.—Weiss. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. T. and T. Clark. Wittichen.
Beitr. z. bibl. Theol. 3. Thle. 1864-72.
Schurer. Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Verhaltniss z. A. T. u z. Judenthum, 1882.
Wellhausen. Abriss der Gesch. Israels u. Juda's (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten) 1. Heft. 1884.
Baldensperger. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Licht der Messianischen Hoffnungen
seiner Zeit, 1888, (2 Aufl. 1891). The prize essays of Schmoller and Issel, Ueber die Lehre
vom Reiche Gottes irn N. Test. 1891 (besides Gunkel in d. Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1893. No. 2).
Wendt. Die Lehre Jesu. (The teaching of Jesus. T. and T. Clark. English translation.)
Job. Weiss. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892. 76
Bousset. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum, 1892.

C. Holtzman. Die Offenbarung durch Christus und das Neue Testament (Zeitschr. f.
Theol. und Kirche I. p. 367 ff.) The special literature in the above work of Weiss, and in the
recent works on the life of Jesus, and the Biblical Theology of the New Testament by Bey-
schlag. [T. T. Clark]
§ 3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in the First Generation of Believers.
Men had met with Jesus Christ and in him had found the Messiah. They were convinced
that God had made him to be wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
There was no hope that did not seem to be certified in him, no lofty idea which had not
69
become in him a living reality. Everything that one possessed was offered to him. He was
everything lofty that could be imagined. Everything that can be said of him was already said
in the first two generations after his appearance. Nay, more: he was felt and known to be
the ever living one Lord of the world and operative principle of one's own life. “To me to
live is Christ and to die is gain;” “He is the way, the truth and the life.” One could now for
the first time be certain of the resurrection and eternal life, and with that certainty the sorrows
of the world melted away like mist before the sun, and the residue of this present time became
as a day. This group of facts which the history of the Gospel discloses in the world, is at the
same time the highest and most unique of all that we meet in that history: it is its seal and
distinguishes it from all other universal religions. Where in the history of mankind can we
find anything resembling this, that men who had eaten and drunk with their Master should
glorify him, not only as the revealer of God, but as the Prince of life, as the Redeemer and
Judge of the world, as the living power of its existence, and that a choir of Jews and Gentiles,
Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish, should along with them immediately confess that
out of the fulness of this one man they have received grace for grace? It has been said that
Islam furnishes the unique example of a religion born in broad daylight, but the community
77
of Jesus was also born in the clear light of day. The darkness connected with its birth is oc-
casioned not only by the imperfection of the records, but by the uniqueness of the fact,
which refers us back to the uniqueness of the Person of Jesus.
But though it certainly is the first duty of the historian to signalise the overpowering
impression made by the Person of Jesus on the disciples, which is the basis of all further
developments, it would little become him to renounce the critical examination of all the
utterances which have been connected with that Person with the view of elucidating and
glorifying it; unless he were with Origen to conclude that Jesus was to each and all whatever
they fancied him to be for their edification. But this would destroy the personality. Others
are of opinion that we should conceive him, in the sense of the early communities, as the
second God who is one in essence with the Father, in order to understand from this point
of view all the declarations and judgments of these communities. But this hypothesis leads
to the most violent distortion of the original declarations, and the suppression or concealment
of their most obvious features. The duty of the historian rather consists in fixing the common
features of the faith of the first two generations, in explaining them as far as possible from
the belief that Jesus is Messiah, and in seeking analogies for the several assertions. Only a
very meagre sketch can be given in what follows. The presentation of the matter in the
frame-work of the history of dogma does not permit of more, because as noted above, § 1,
the presupposition of dogma forming itself in the Gentile Church is not the whole infinitely
rich abundance of early Christian views and perceptions. That presupposition is simply a
proclamation of the one God and of Christ transferred to Greek soil, fixed merely in its
leading features and otherwise very plastic, accompanied by a message regarding the future,
70
and demands for a holy life. At the same time the Old Testament and the early Christian
Palestinian writings with the rich abundance of their contents, did certainly exercise a silent
mission in the earliest communities, till by the creation of the canon they became a power
78
in the Church.
1. The contents of the faith of the disciples,73 and the common proclamation which
united them, may be comprised in the following propositions. Jesus of Nazareth is the
Messiah promised by the prophets. Jesus after his death is by the Divine awakening raised
to the right hand of God, and will soon return to set up his kingdom visibly upon the earth.
He who believes in Jesus, and has been received into the community of the disciples of Jesus,
who, in virtue of a sincere change of mind, calls on God as Father, and lives according to
the commandments of Jesus, is a saint of God, and as such can be certain of the sin-forgiving
grace of God, and of a share in the future glory, that is, of redemption.74
A community of Christian believers was formed within the Jewish national community.
By its organisation, the close brotherly union of its members, it bore witness to the impression
which the Person of Jesus had made on it, and drew from faith in Jesus and hope of his return,
the assurance of eternal life, the power of believing in God the Father and of fulfilling the
lofty moral and social commands which Jesus had set forth. They knew themselves to be
the true Israel of the Messianic time (see § 1), and for that very reason lived with all their
thoughts and feelings in the future. Hence the Apocalyptic hopes which in manifold types
were current in the Judaism of the time, and which Jesus had not demolished, continued to
a great extent in force (see § 4). One guarantee for their fulfilment was supposed to be pos-
sessed in the various manifestations of the Spirit,75 which were displayed in the members
of the new communities at their entrance, with which an act of baptism seems to have been
united from the very first,76 and in their gatherings. They were a guarantee that believers
79
73 See the brilliant investigations of Weizsäcker (Apost. Zeitalter. p. 36) as to the earliest significant names,
self-designations, of the disciples. The twelve were in the first place “μαθηταί” (disciples and family-circle of
Jesus, see also the significance of James and the brethren of Jesus), then witnesses of the resurrection and
therefore Apostles; very soon there appeared beside them, even in Jerusalem, Prophets and Teachers.
74 The christian preaching is very pregnantly described in Acts XXVIII. 31, as κηρύσσειν τὴν Βασιλείαν τοῦ
θεοῦ, καὶ διδάσκειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
75 On the spirit of God (of Christ) see note, p. 50. The earliest christians felt the influence of the spirit as one
coming on them from without.
76 It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matth. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord.
The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as
delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign
to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended
from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian
71
really were the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, those called to be saints, and, as such, kings and priests
unto God77 for whom the world, death and devil are overcome, although they still rule the
course of the world. The confession of the God of Israel as the Father of Jesus, and of Jesus
as Christ and Lord78 was sealed by the testimony of the possession of the Spirit, which as
Spirit of God assured every individual of his call to the kingdom, united him personally with
God himself and became to him the pledge of future glory.79
80
2. As the Kingdom of God which was announced had not yet visibly appeared, as the
appeal to the Spirit could not be separated from the appeal to Jesus as Messiah, and as there
communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also
baptised. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition
of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John IV. 2, Jesus
himself baptised not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition
to trace back to Jesus a “Sacrament of Baptism,” or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, though it is credible
that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was εἰς τὸ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, and indeed εἰς τὸ ὄνομα
(1. Cor. I. 13: Acts XIX. 5). We cannot make out when the formula, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ ὑιοῦ, καὶ
τοῦ ἀγίου ρνεύματος, emerged. The formula, εἰς τὸ ὀν
́ ομα, expresses that the person baptised is put into a relation
of dependence on him into whose name he is baptised. Paul has given baptism a relation to the death of Christ,
or justly inferred it from the εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. The descent of the spirit on the baptised very soon ceased to
be regarded as the necessary and immediate result of baptism; yet Paul, and probably his contemporaries also,
considered the grace of baptism and the communication of the spirit to be inseparably united. See Scholten. Die
Taufformel. 1885. Holtzman, Die Taufe im N. T. Ztsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1879.
77 The designation of the Christian community as ἐκκλησία originates perhaps with Paul, though that is by
no means certain; see as to this “name of honour,” Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. p. 16 ff. The words of the Lord,
Matt. XVI. 18: XVIII. 17, belong to a later period. According to Gal. I. 22, ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ is added to the ταῖς
ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας. The independence of every individual Christian in and before God is strongly insisted
on in the Epistles of Paul, and in the Epistle of Peter, and in the Christian portions of Revelations: ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν,
ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ.
78 Jesus is regarded with adoring reverence as Messiah and Lord, that is, these are regarded as the names
which his Father has given him. Christians are those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. I. 2):
every creature must bow before him and confess him as Lord (Phil. II. 9): see Deissmann on the N. T. formula
“in Christo Jesu.”
79 The confession of Father, Son and Spirit is therefore the unfolding of the belief that Jesus is the Christ; but
there was no intention of expressing by this confession the essential equality of the three persons, or even the
similar relation of the Christian to them. On the contrary, the Father in it is regarded as the God and Father
over all, the Son as revealer, redeemer and Lord, the Spirit as a possession, principle of the new supernatural life
and of holiness. From the Epistles of Paul we perceive that the Formula, Father, Son and Spirit, could not yet
have been customary, especially in Baptism. But it was approaching (2 Cor. XIII. 13).
72
was actually nothing possessed but the reality of the Person of Jesus, so, in preaching, all
stress must necessarily fall on this Person. To believe in him was the decisive fundamental
requirement, and, at first, under the presupposition of the religion of Abraham and the
Prophets, the sure guarantee of salvation. It is not surprising then to find that in the earliest
Christian preaching Jesus Christ comes before us as frequently as the Kingdom of God in
the preaching of Jesus himself. The image of Jesus and the power which proceeded from it
were the things which were really possessed. Whatever was expected was expected only
from Jesus the exalted and returning one. The proclamation that the Kingdom of heaven is
at hand must therefore become the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ, and that in him
the revelation of God is complete. He who lays hold of Jesus lays hold in him of the grace
of God and of a full salvation. We cannot, however, call this in itself a displacement: but as
soon as the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ ceased to be made with the same emphasis
and the same meaning that it had in his own preaching, and what sort of blessings they were
which he brought, not only was a displacement inevitable, but even a dispossession. But
every dispossession requires the given forms to be filled with new contents. Simple as was
81
the pure tradition of the confession: “Jesus is the Christ,” the task of rightly appropriating
and handing down entire the peculiar contents which Jesus had given to his self-witnessing
and preaching was nevertheless great, and in its limit uncertain. Even the Jewish Christian
could perform this task only according to the measure of his spiritual understanding and
the strength of his religious life. Moreover, the external position of the first communities
in the midst of contemporaries who had crucified and rejected Jesus, compelled them to
prove, as their main duty, that Jesus really was the Messiah who was promised. Consequently,
everything united to bring the first communities to the conviction that the proclamation of
the Gospel with which they were entrusted, resolved itself into the proclamation that Jesus
is the Christ. The διδάσκειν τηρεῖν πάντα ὃσα ἐνετείλατο ὀ Ἰησοῦς (teaching to observe all
that Jesus had commanded), a thing of heart and life, could not lead to reflection in the same
degree, as the διδάσκειν ὅτι οὖτὸς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (teaching that this is the Christ
of God); for a community which possesses the Spirit does not reflect on whether its concep-
tion is right, but, especially a missionary community, on what the certainty of its faith rests.
The proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, though rooted entirely in the Old Testament,
took its start from the exaltation of Jesus, which again resulted from his suffering and death.
The proof that the entire Old Testament points to him, and that his person, his deeds and
his destiny are the actual and precise fulfilment of the Old Testament predictions, was the
foremost interest of believers, so far as they at all looked backwards. This proof was not used
in the first place for the purpose of making the meaning and value of the Messianic work
of Jesus more intelligible, of which it did not seem to be in much need, but to confirm the
Messiahship of Jesus. Still, points of view for contemplating the Person and work of Jesus
73
could not fail to be got from the words of the Prophets. The fundamental conception of Jesus
dominating everything was, according to the Old Testament, that God had chosen him and
through him the Church. God had chosen him and made him to be both Lord and Christ.
82
He had made over to him the work of setting up the Kingdom, and had led him through
death and resurrection to a supramundane position of sovereignty, in which he would soon
visibly appear and bring about the end. The hope of Christ's speedy return was the most
important article in the “Christology,” inasmuch as his work was regarded as only reaching
its conclusion by that return. It was the most difficult, inasmuch as the Old Testament
contained nothing of a second advent of Messiah. Belief in the second advent became the
specific Christian belief.
But the searching in the scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, in the prophetic texts,
had already, in estimating the Person and dignity of Christ, given an important impulse
towards transcending the frame-work of the idea of the theocracy completed solely in and
for Israel. Moreover, belief in the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, caused men
to form a corresponding idea of the beginning of his existence. The missionary work among
the Gentiles, so soon begun and so rich in results, threw a new light on the range of Christ's
purpose and work, and led to the consideration of its significance for the whole human race.
Finally, the self-testimony of Jesus summoned them to ponder his relation to God the
Father, with the presuppositions of that relation, and to give it expression in intelligible
statements. Speculation had already begun on these four points in the Apostolic age, and
had resulted in very different utterances as to the Person and dignity of Jesus (§ 4).80
3. Since Jesus had appeared and was believed on as the Messiah promised by the
Prophets, the aim and contents of his mission seemed already to be therewith stated with 83
sufficient clearness. Further, as the work of Christ was not yet completed, the view of those
80 The Christological utterances which are found in the New Testament writings, so far as they explain and
paraphrase the confession of Jesus as the Christ and the Lord, may be almost entirely deduced from one or
other of the four points mentioned in the text. But we must at the same time insist that these declarations were
meant to be explanations of the confession that “Jesus is the Lord,” which of course included the recognition
that Jesus by the resurrection became a heavenly being (see Weizsäcker in above mentioned work, p. 110). The
solemn protestation of Paul, I Cor. XII. 3; διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὁτ́ ι οὐδεις ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει, ΑΝΑΘΕΜΑ
ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, καὶ οὐδεις δύναται εἰπεῖν, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (cf. Rom. X. 9), shews that he who
acknowledged Jesus as the Lord, and accordingly believed in the resurrection of Jesus, was regarded as a full-
born Christian. It undoubtedly excludes from the Apostolic age the independent authority of any christological
dogma besides that confession and the worship of Christ connected with it. It is worth notice, however, that
those early Christian men who recognised Christianity as the vanquishing of the Old Testament religion (Paul,
the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, John) all held that Christ was a being who had come down from
heaven.
74
contemplating it was, above all, turned to the future. But in virtue of express words of Jesus,
and in the consciousness of having received the Spirit of God, one was already certain of
the forgiveness of sin dispensed by God, of righteousness before him, of the full knowledge
of the Divine will, and of the call to the future Kingdom as a present possession. In the
procuring of these blessings not a few perceived with certainty the results of the first advent
of Messiah, that is, his work. This work might be seen in the whole activity of Christ. But
as the forgiveness of sins might be conceived as the blessing of salvation which included
with certainty every other blessing, as Jesus had put his death in express relation with this
blessing, and as the fact of this death so mysterious and offensive required a special explan-
ation, there appeared in the foreground from the very beginning the confession, in I Cor.
XV. 3: παρέδωκα ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὁ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died
for our sins.” Not only Paul, for whom, in virtue of his special reflections and experiences,
the cross of Christ had become the central point of all knowledge, but also the majority of
believers, must have regarded the preaching of the death of the Lord as an essential article,
in the preaching of Christ,81 seeing that, as a rule, they placed it somehow under the aspect
of a sacrifice offered to God. Still, there were very different conceptions of the value of the
death as a means of procuring salvation, and there may have been many who were satisfied
84
with basing its necessity on the fact that it had been predicted, (ἀπέθανεν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς:
“he died for our sins according to the scriptures”), while their real religious interests were
entirely centered in the future glory to be procured by Christ. But it must have been of
greater significance for the following period that, from the first, a short account of the destiny
of Jesus lay at the basis of all preaching about him (see a part of this in 1. Cor. XV. 1-11).
Those articles in which the identity of the Christ who had appeared with the Christ who
had been promised stood out with special clearness, must have been taken up into this report,
as well as those which transcended the common expectations of Messiah, which for that
very reason appeared of special importance, viz., his death and resurrection. In putting to-
gether this report, there was no intention of describing the “work” of Christ. But after the
interest which occasioned it had been obscured, and had given place to other interests, the
81 Compare in their fundamental features the common declarations about the saving value of the death of
Christ in Paul, in the johannine writings, in 1st Peter, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Christian portions
of the book of Revelation: Τῷ ἀγαπῶνί ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτῷ, αὐτῷ ἡ
δόξα: Compare the reference to Isaiah LIII. and the Passover lamb: the utterances about the “lamb” generally
in the early writings: see Westcott, The Epistles of John, p. 34 f.: The idea of the blood of Christ in the New
Testament.
75
customary preaching of those articles must have led men to see in them Christ's real per-
formance, his “work.”82
4. The firm confidence of the disciples in Jesus was rooted in the belief that he did not
abide in death, but was raised by God. That Christ had risen was, in virtue of what they had
experienced in him, certainly only after they had seen him, just as sure as the fact of his
death, and became the main article of their preaching about him.83 But in the message of
the risen Lord was contained not only the conviction that he lives again, and now lives for
ever, but also the assurance that his people will rise in like manner and live eternally. Con-
85
sequently, the resurrection of Jesus became the sure pledge of the resurrection of all believers,
that is of their real personal resurrection. No one at the beginning thought of a mere immor-
tality of the spirit, not even those who assumed the perishableness of man's sensuous nature.
In conformity with the uncertainty which yet adhered to the idea of resurrection in Jewish
hopes and speculations, the concrete notions of it in the Christian communities were also
fluctuating. But this could not affect the certainty of the conviction that the Lord would
raise his people from death. This conviction, whose reverse side is the fear of that God who
casts into hell, has become the mightiest power through which the Gospel has won human-
ity.84
82 This of course could not take place otherwise than by reflecting on its significance. But a dislocation was
already completed as soon as it was isolated and separated from the whole of Jesus, or even from his future
activity. Reflection on the meaning or the causes of particular facts might easily, in virtue of that isolation, issue
in entirely new conceptions.
83 See the discriminating statements of Weizsäcker, “Apostolic Age,” p. 1 f., especially as to the significance
of Peter as first witness of the resurrection. Cf. 1 Cor. XV. 5 with Luke XXIV. 34: also the fragment of the
“Gospel of Peter” which unfortunately breaks off at the point where one expects the appearance of the Lord to
Peter.
84 It is often said that Christianity rests on the belief in the resurrection of Christ. This may be correct, if it is
first declared who this Jesus Christ is, and what his life signifies. But when it appears as a naked report to which
one must above all submit, and when in addition, as often happens, it is supplemented by the assertion that the
resurrection of Christ is the most certain fact in the history of the world, one does not know whether he should
marvel more at its thoughtlessness or its unbelief. We do not need to have faith in a fact, and that which requires
religious belief, that is, trust in God, can never be a fact which would hold good apart from that belief. The his-
torical question and the question of faith must therefore be clearly distinguished here. The following points are
historically certain. (1) That none of Christ's opponents saw him after his death. (2) That the disciples were
convinced that they had seen him soon after his death. (3) That the succession and number of those appearances
can no longer be ascertained with certainty. (4) That the disciples and Paul were conscious of having seen Christ
not in the crucified earthly body, but in heavenly glory—even the later incredible accounts of the appearances
of Christ, which strongly emphasise the reality of the body, speak at the same time of such a body as can pass
through closed doors, which certainly is not an earthly body. (5) That Paul does not compare the manifestation
76
of Christ given to him with any of his later visions, but, on the other hand, describes it in the words (Gal. I. 15:
ὅτε εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, and yet puts it on a level with the appearances which
the earlier Apostles had seen. But, as even the empty grave on the third day can by no means be regarded as a
certain historical fact, because it appears united in the accounts with manifest legendary features, and further
because it is directly excluded by the way in which Paul has portrayed the resurrection 1 Cor. XV. it follows: (1)
That every conception which represents the resurrection of Christ as a simple reanimation of his mortal body,
is far from the original conception, and (2) that the question generally as to whether Jesus has risen, can have
no existence for any one who looks at it apart from the contents and worth of the Person of Jesus. For the mere
fact that friends and adherents of Jesus were convinced that they had seen him, especially when they themselves
explain that he appeared to them in heavenly glory, gives, to those who are in earnest about fixing historical
facts, not the least cause for the assumption that Jesus did not continue in the grave. History is therefore at first
unable to bring any succour to faith here. However firm may have been the faith of the disciples in the appearances
of Jesus in their midst, and it was firm, to believe in appearances which others have had is a frivolity which is
always revenged by rising doubts. But history is still of service to faith: it limits its scope and therewith shews
the province to which it belongs. The question which history leaves to faith is this: Was Jesus Christ swallowed
up of death, or did he pass through suffering and the cross to glory, that is, to life, power and honour? The disciples
would have been convinced of that in the sense in which Jesus meant them to understand it, though they had
not seen him in glory (a consciousness of this is found in Luke XXIV. 26: οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν
καί εὐσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ; and Joh. XX. 29: ὅτι εώρακας με πεπίστευκας, μακαριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδοντες καὶ
πιστέυσαντες) and we might probably add, that no appearances of the Lord could permanently have convinced
them of his life, if they had not possessed in their hearts the impression of his Person. Faith in the eternal life of
Christ and in our own eternal life is not the condition of becoming a disciple of Jesus, but is the final confession
of discipleship. Faith has by no means to do with the knowledge of the form in which Jesus lives, but only with
the conviction that he is the living Lord The determination of the form was immediately dependent on the most
varied general ideas of the future life, resurrection, restoration, and glorification of the body, which were current
at the time. The idea of the rising again of the body of Jesus appeared comparatively early, because it was this
hope which animated wide circles of pious people for their own future. Faith in Jesus, the living Lord, in spite
of the death on the cross, cannot be generated by proofs of reason or authority, but only to-day in the same way
as Paul has confessed of himself: ὅτε εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ἀποκαλύψσαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ. The conviction
of having seen the Lord was no doubt of the greatest importance for the disciples and made them Evangelists:
but what they saw cannot at first help us. It can only then obtain significance for us when we have gained that
confidence in the Lord which Peter has expressed in Mark VIII. 29. The Christian even to-day confesses with
Paul: εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτὴ ἐν χριστῷ ἡλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν. He believes
in a future life for himself with God because he believes that Christ lives. That is the peculiarity and paradox of
Christian faith. But these are not convictions that can be common and matter of course to a deep feeling and
earnest thinking being standing amid nature and death, but can only be possessed by those who live with their
whole hearts and minds in God, and even they need the prayer: “I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” To act as
if faith in eternal life and in the living Christ was the simplest thing in the world, or a dogma to which one has
just to submit, is irreligious. The whole question about the resurrection of Christ, its mode and its significance,
77
5. After the appearance of Paul, the earliest communities were greatly exercised by the
question as to how believers obtain the righteousness which they possess, and what signific- 86
ance a precise observance of the law of the Fathers may have in connection with it. While
some would hear of no change in the regulations and conceptions which had hitherto existed,
and regarded the bestowal of righteousness by God as possible only on condition of a strict
observance of the law, others taught that Jesus as Messiah had procured righteousness for
his people, had fulfilled the law once for all, and had founded a new covenant, either in op-
position to the old, or as a stage above it. Paul especially saw in the death of Christ the end
of the law, and deduced righteousness solely from faith in Christ, and sought to prove from
the Old Testament itself, by means of historical speculation, the merely temporary validity
of the law and therewith the abrogation of the Old Testament religion. Others, and this
view, which is not everywhere to be explained by Alexandrian influences (see above p. 72
f.), is not foreign to Paul, distinguished between spirit and letter in the Mosaic law, giving
87
to everything a spiritual significance, and in this sense holding that the whole law as νόμος
τνευματικός was binding. The question whether righteousness comes from the works of
the law or from faith, was displaced by this conception, and therefore remained in its
deepest grounds unsolved, or was decided in the sense of a spiritualised legalism. But the
detachment of Christianity from the political forms of the Jewish religion, and from sacrificial
worship, was also completed by the conception, although it was regarded as identical with
the Old Testament religion rightly understood. The surprising results of the direct mission
to the Gentiles would seem to have first called forth those controversies (but see Stephen)
and given them the highest significance. The fact that one section of Jewish Christians, and
even some of the Apostles at length recognised the right of the Gentile Christians to be
Christians without first becoming Jews, is the clearest proof that what was above all prized
88
was faith in Christ and surrender to him as the Saviour. In agreeing to the direct mission
to the Gentiles the earliest Christians, while they themselves observed the law, broke up the
national religion of Israel, and gave expression to the conviction that Jesus was not only the
Messiah of his people, but the redeemer of humanity.85 The establishment of the universal
has thereby been so thoroughly confused in later Christendom, that we are in the habit of considering eternal
life as certain, even apart from Christ. That, at any rate, is not Christian. It is Christian to pray that God would
give the Spirit to make us strong to overcome the feelings and the doubts of nature, and create belief in an
eternal life through the experience of “dying to live.” Where this faith, obtained in this way, exists, it has always
been supported by the conviction that the Man lives who brought life and immortality to light. To hold fast this
faith is the goal of life, for only what we consciously strive for is in this matter our own. What we think we possess
is very soon lost.
85 Weizsäcker (Apostolic Age, p. 73) says very justly: “The rising of Judaism against believers put them on
their own feet. They saw themselves for the first time persecuted in the name of the law, and therewith for the
first time it must have become clear to them, that in reality the law was no longer the same to them as to the
78
character of the Gospel, that is, of Christianity as a religion for the world, became now,
however, a problem, the solution of which, as given by Paul, but few were able to understand
or make their own.
6. In the conviction that salvation is entirely bound up with faith in Jesus Christ,
Christendom gained the consciousness of being a new creation of God. But while the sense
of being the true Israel was thereby, at the same time, held fast, there followed, on the one
hand, entirely new historical perspectives, and on the other, deep problems which demanded
solution. As a new creation of God, ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, the community was conscious of
having been chosen by God in Jesus before the foundation of the world. In the conviction
of being the true Israel, it claimed for itself the whole historical development recorded in
the Old Testament, convinced that all the divine activity there recorded had the new com-
munity in view. The great question which was to find very different answers, was how, in
89
accordance with this view, the Jewish nation, so far as it had not recognised Jesus as Messiah,
should be judged. The detachment of Christianity from Judaism was the most important
preliminary condition, and therefore the most important preparation, for the Mission among
the Gentile nations, and for union with the Greek spirit.
Supplement 1.—Renan and others go too far when they say that Paul alone has the glory
of freeing Christianity from the fetters of Judaism. Certainly the great Apostle could say in
this connection also: περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα, but there were others beside
him who, in the power of the Gospel, transcended the limits of Judaism. Christian communit-
ies, it may now be considered certain, had arisen in the empire, in Rome for example, which
were essentially free from the law without being in any way determined by Paul's preaching.
It was Paul's merit that he clearly formulated the great question, established the universalism
of Christianity in a peculiar manner, and yet in doing so held fast the character of Christianity
as a positive religion, as distinguished from Philosophy and Moralism. But the later devel-
others. Their hope is the coming kingdom of heaven, in which it is not the law, but their Master from whom
they expect salvation. Everything connected with salvation is in him. But we should not investigate the conditions
of the faith of that early period, as though the question had been laid before the Apostles whether they could
have part in the Kingdom of heaven without circumcision, or whether it could be obtained by faith in Jesus,
with or without the observance of the law. Such questions had no existence for them either practically or as
questions of the school. But though they were Jews, and the law which even their Master had not abolished, was
for them a matter of course, that did not exclude a change of inner position towards it, through faith in their
Master and hope of the Kingdom. There is an inner freedom which can grow up along-side of all the constraints
of birth, custom, prejudice, and piety. But this only comes into consciousness, when a demand is made on it
which wounds it, or when it is assailed on account of an inference drawn not by its own consciousness, but only
by its opponents.
79
opment presupposes neither his clear formulation nor his peculiar establishment of univer-
salism, but only the universalism itself.
Supplement 2.—The dependence of the Pauline Theology on the Old Testament or on
Judaism is overlooked in the traditional contrasting of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity,
in which Paulinism is made equivalent to Gentile Christianity. This theology, as we might
a priori suppose, could, apart from individual exceptions, be intelligible as a whole to born
Jews, if to any, for its doctrinal presuppositions were strictly Pharisaic, and its boldness in
criticising the Old Testament, rejecting and asserting the law in its historical sense, could
be as little congenial to the Gentile Christians as its piety towards the Jewish people. This
judgment is confirmed by a glance at the fate of Pauline Theology in the 120 years that fol-
lowed. Marcion was the only Gentile Christian who understood Panl, and even he misun-
derstood him: the rest never got beyond the appropriation of particular Pauline sayings,
and exhibited no comprehension especially of the theology of the Apostle, so far as in it the
universalism of Christianity as a religion is proved, even without recourse to Moralism and
90
without putting a new construction on the Old Testament religion. It follows from this,
however, that the scheme “Jewish Christianity”—“Gentile Christianity” is insufficient. We
must rather, in the Apostolic age, at least at its close, distinguish four main tendencies that
may have crossed each other here and there,86 (within which again different shades appear).
(1) The Gospel has to do with the people of Israel, and with the Gentile world only on the
condition that believers attach themselves to the people of Israel. The punctilious observance
of the law is still necessary and the condition on which the messianic salvation is bestowed
(particularism and legalism, in practice and in principle, which, however, was not to cripple
the obligation to prosecute the work of the Mission). (2) The Gospel has to do with Jews
and Gentiles: the first, as believers in Christ, are under obligation as before to observe the
law, the latter are not; but for that reason they cannot on earth fuse into one community
with the believing Jews. Very different judgments in details were possible on this stand-
point; but the bestowal of salvation could no longer be thought of as depending simply on
the keeping of the ceremonial commandments of the law87 (universalism in principle, par-
ticularism in practice; the prerogative of Israel being to some extent clung to). (3) The
86 Only one of these four tendencies—the Pauline, with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings
which are related to Paulinism—has seen in the Gospel the establishment of a new religion. The rest identified
it with Judaism made perfect, or with the Old Testament religion rightly understood. But Paul, in connecting
Christianity with the promise given to Abraham, passing thus beyond the actual Old Testament religion, has
not only given it a historical foundation, but also claimed for the Father of the Jewish nation a unique significance
for Christianity. As to the tendencies named 1 and 2, see Book I. chap. 6.
87 It is clear from Gal. II. 11 ff. that Peter then and for long before occupied in principle the stand-point of
Paul: see the judicious remarks of Weizsäcker in the book mentioned above, p. 75 f.
80
Gospel has to do with both Jews and Gentiles; no one is any longer under obligation to ob-
serve the law; for the law is abolished (or fulfilled), and the salvation which Christ's death
has procured is appropriated by faith. The law (that is the Old Testament religion) in its
literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended from the first only for a definite epoch of
91
history. The prerogative of Israel remains, and is shewn in the fact that salvation was first
offered to the Jews, and it will be shewn again at the end of all history. That prerogative
refers to the nation as a whole, and has nothing to do with the question of the salvation of
individuals (Paulinism: universalism in principle and in practice, and Antinomianism in
virtue of the recognition of a merely temporary validity of the whole law; breach with the
traditional religion of Israel; recognition of the prerogative of the people of Israel; the
clinging to the prerogative of the people of Israel was not, however, necessary on this stand-
point: see the epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John). (4) The Gospel has to do with
Jews and Gentiles: no one need therefore be under obligation to observe the ceremonial
commandments and sacrificial worship, because these commandments themselves are only
the wrappings or moral and spiritual commandments which the Gospel has set forth as
fulfilled in a more perfect form (universalism in principle and in practice in virtue of a
neutralising of the distinction between law and Gospel, old and new; spiritualising and
universalising of the law).88
Supplement 3.—The appearance of Paul is the most important fact in the history of the
Apostolic age. It is impossible to give in a few sentences an abstract of his theology and 92
work; and the insertion here of a detailed account is forbidden, not only by the external
limits, but by the aim of this investigation. For, as already indicated (§ 1), the doctrinal
formation in the Gentile Church is not connected with the whole phenomenon of the Pauline
88 These four tendencies were represented in the Apostolic age by those who had been born and trained in
Judaism, and they were collectively transplanted into Greek territory. But we cannot be sure that the third of
the above tendencies found intelligent and independent representatives in this domain, as there is no certain
evidence of it. Only one who had really been subject to it, and therefore understood it, could venture on a criticism
of the Old Testament religion. Still, it may be noted that the majority of non-Jewish converts in the Apostolic
age had probably come to know the Old Testament beforehand—not always the Jewish religion, (see Havet, Le
Christianisme, T. IV. p. 120: “Je ne sais s'il y est entré, du vivant de Paul, un seul païen: je veux dire un homme,
qui ne connût pas déjà, avant d'y entrer, le judaism et la Bible”). These indications will shew how mistaken and
misleading it is to express the different tendencies in the Apostolic age and the period closely following by the
designations “Jewish Christianity—Gentile Christianity.” Short watchwords are so little appropriate here that
one might even with some justice reverse the usual conception, and maintain that what is usually understood
by Gentile Christianity (criticism of the Old Testament religion) was possible only within Judaism, while that
which is frequently called Jewish Christianity is rather a conception which must have readily suggested itself to
born Gentiles superficially acquainted with the Old Testament.
81
theology, but only with certain leading thoughts which were only in part peculiar to the
Apostle. His most peculiar thoughts acted on the development of Ecclesiastical doctrine
only by way of occasional stimulus. We can find room here only for a few general outlines.89
(1) The inner conviction that Christ had revealed himself to him, that the Gospel was
the message of the crucified and risen Christ, and that God had called him to proclaim that
message to the world, was the power and the secret of his personality and his activity. These
three elements were a unity in the consciousness of Paul, constituting his conversion and
determining his after-life. (2) In this conviction he knew himself to be a new creature, and
so vivid was this knowledge that he was constrained to become a Jew to the Jews, and a
Greek to the Greeks in order to gain them. (3) The crucified and risen Christ became the
central point of his theology, and not only the central point, but the one source and ruling
principle. The Christ was not in his estimation Jesus of Nazareth now exalted, but the mighty
personal spiritual being in divine form who had for a time humbled himself, and who as
Spirit has broken up the world of law, sin and death, and continues to overcome them in
believers. (4) Theology therefore was to him, looking forwards, the doctrine of the liberating
93
power of the Spirit (of Christ) in all the concrete relations of human life and need. The
Christ who has already overcome law, sin and death, lives as Spirit, and through his Spirit
lives in believers, who for that very reason know him not after the flesh. He is a creative
power of life to those who receive him in faith in his redeeming death upon the cross, that
is to say, to those who are justified. The life in the Spirit, which results from union with
Christ, will at last reveal itself also in the body (not in the flesh). (5) Looking backwards,
theology was to Paul a doctrine of the law and of its abrogation; or more accurately, a de-
scription of the old system before Christ in the light of the Gospel, and the proof that it was
destroyed by Christ. The scriptural proof, even here, is only a superadded support to inner
considerations which move entirely within the thought that that which is abrogated has
already had its due, by having its whole strength made manifest that it might then be an-
nulled,—the law, the flesh of sin, death: by the law the law is destroyed, sin is abolished in
sinful flesh, death is destroyed by death. (6) The historical view which followed from this
begins, as regards Christ, with Adam and Abraham; as regards the law, with Moses. It closes,
89 The first edition of this volume could not appeal to Weizsäcker's work, Das Apostolisehe Zeitalter der
Christlichen Kirche, 1886, [second edition translated in this series]. The author is now in the happy position of
being able to refer the readers of his imperfect sketch to this excellent presentation, the strength of which lies
in the delineation of Paulinism in its relation to the early Church, and to early Christian theology (p. 79-172).
The truth of Weizsäcker's expositions of the inner relations (p. 85 f.), is but little affected by his assumptions
concerning the outer relations, which I cannot everywhere regard as just. (The work of Weizsäcker as a whole
is, in my opinion, the most important work on Church history we have received since Ritschl's “Entstehung der
alt-katholischen Kirche.” 2 Aufl. 1857.)
82
as regards Christ, with the prospect of a time when he shall have put all enemies beneath
his feet, when God will be all in all; as regards Moses and the promises given to the Jewish
nation, with the prospect of a time when all Israel will be saved. (7) Paul's doctrine of Christ
starts from the final confession of the primitive Church, that Christ is with the Father as a
heavenly being and as Lord of the living and the dead. Though Paul must have accurately
known the proclamation concerning the historical Christ, his theology in the strict sense of
the word does not revert to it: but springing over the historical, it begins with the pre-existent
Christ (the Man from heaven), whose moral deed it was to assume the flesh in self-denying
love, in order to break for all men the powers of nature and the doom of death. But he has
pointed to the words and
example of the historical Christ in order to rule the life in the Spirit. (8) Deductions,
94
proofs, and perhaps also conceptions, which in point of form betray the theology of the
Pharisaic schools, were forced from the Apostle by Christian opponents, who would only
grant a place to the message of the crucified Christ beside the δικαιοσύνη ἐξ ἔργων. Both
as an exegete and as a typologist he appears as a disciple of the Pharisees. But his dialectic
about law, circumcision and sacrifice, does not form the kernel of his religious mode of
thought, though, on the other hand, it was unquestionably his very Pharisaism which qual-
ified him for becoming what he was. Pharisaism embraced nearly everything lofty which
Judaism apart from Christ at all possessed, and its doctrine of providence, its energetic in-
sistance on making manifest the religious contrasts, its Messianic expectations, its doctrines
of sin and predestination, were conditions for the genesis of a religious and Christian char-
acter such as Paul.90 This first Christian of the second generation is the highest product of
the Jewish spirit under the creative power of the Spirit of Christ. Pharisaism had fulfilled
its mission for the world when it produced this man. (9) But Hellenism also had a share in
the making of Paul, a fact which does not conflict with his Pharisaic origin, but is partly
given with it. In spite of all its exclusiveness the desire for making proselytes especially in
the Diaspora, was in the blood of Pharisaism. Paul continued the old movement in a new
way, and he was qualified for his work among the Greeks by an accurate knowledge of the
Greek translation of the Old Testament, by considerable dexterity in the use of the Greek
language, and by a growing insight into the spiritual life of the Greeks. But the peculiarity
of his Gospel as a message from the Spirit of Christ, which was equally near to and equally
distant from every religious and moral mode of thought among the nations of the world,
signified much more than all this. This Gospel—who can say whether Hellenism had already
a share in its conception—required that the missionary to the Greeks should become a Greek
95
90 Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893, has shewn how strongly the eschatology of Paul was influenced
by the later Pharisaic Judaism. He has also called attention to the close connection between Paul's doctrine of
sin and the fall, and that of the Rabbis.
83
and that believers should come to know, “all things are yours, and ye are Christ's.” Paul, as
no doubt other missionaries besides him, connected the preaching of Christ with the Greek
mode of thought; he even employed philosophic doctrines of the Greeks as presuppositions
in his apologetic,91 and therewith prepared the way for the introduction of the Gospel to
the Græco-Roman world of thought. But, in my opinion, he has nowhere allowed that world
of thought to influence his doctrine of salvation. This doctrine, however, was so fashioned
in its practical aims that it was not necessary to become a Jew in order to appropriate it. (10)
Yet we cannot speak of any total effect of Paulinism, as there was no such thing. The
abundance of its details was too great and the greatness of its simplicity too powerful, its
hope of the future too vivid, its doctrine of the law too difficult, its summons to a new life
in the spirit too mighty to be comprehended and adhered to even by those communities
which Paul himself had founded. What they did comprehend was its Monotheism, its uni-
versalism, its redemption, its eternal life, its asceticism; but all this was otherwise combined
than by Paul. The style became Hellenic, and the element of a new kind of knowledge from
the very first, as in the Church of Corinth, seems to have been the ruling one. The Pauline
doctrine of the incarnate heavenly Man was indeed apprehended; it fell in with Greek notions,
although it meant something very different from the notions which Greeks had been able
to form of it.
Supplement 4.—What we justly prize above all else in the New Testament is that it is a
union of the three groups, Synoptic Gospels, Pauline Epistles,92 and Johannine writings, in
which are expressed the richest contents of the earliest history of the Gospel. In the Synodic
Gospels and the epistles of Paul are represented two types of preaching the Gospel which
96
mutually supplement each other. The subsequent history is dependent on both, and would
have been other than it is had not both existed alongside of each other. On the other hand,
the peculiar and lofty conception of Christ and of the Gospel, which stands out in the writings
of John, has directly exercised no demonstrable influence on the succeeding develop-
91 Some of the Church Fathers (see Socr. H. E. III. 16) have attributed to Paul an accurate knowledge of Greek
literature and philosophy: but that cannot be proved. The references of Heinrici (2 Kor -Brief. p. 537-604) are
worthy of our best thanks; but no certain judgment can be formed about the measure of the Apostles' Greek
culture, so long as we do not know how great was the extent of spiritual ideas which were already precipitated
in the speech of the time.
92 The epistle to the Hebrews and the first epistle of Peter, as well as the Pastoral epistles belong to the Pauline
circle; they are of the greatest value because they shew that certain fundamental features of Pauline theology
took effect after-wards in an original way, or received independent parallels, and because they prove that the
cosmic Christology of Paul made the greatest impression and was continued. In Christology, the epistle to the
Ephesians in particular, leads directly from Paul to the pneumatic Christology of the post-apostolic period. Its
non-genuineness is by no means certain to me.
84
ment—with the exception of one peculiar movement, the Montanistic which, however, does
not rest on a true understanding of these writings—and indeed partly for the same reason
that has prevented the Pauline theology as a whole from having such an influence. What is
given in these writings is a criticism of the Old Testament as religion, or the independence
of the Christian religion, in virtue of an accurate knowledge of the Old Testament through
development of its hidden germs. The Old Testament stage of religion is really transcended
and over-come in the Johannine Christianity, just as in Paulinism, and in the theology of
the epistle to the Hebrews. “The circle of disciples who appropriated this characterisation
of Jesus is,” says Weizsäcke, “a revived Christ-party in the higher sense.” But this transcending
of the Old Testament religion was the very thing that was unintelligible, because there were
few ripe for such a conception. Moreover, the origin of the Johannine writings is, from the
stand-point of a history of literature and dogma, the most marvellous enigma which the
early history of Christianity presents: Here we have portrayed a Christ who clothes the in-
describable with words, and proclaims as his own self-testimony what his disciples have
experienced in him, a speaking, acting, Pauline Christ, walking on the earth, far more human
than the Christ of Paul and yet far more Divine, an abundance of allusions to the historical
Jesus, and at the same time the most sovereign treatment of the history. One divines that
97
the Gospel can find no loftier expression than John XVII.: one feels that Christ himself put
these words into the mouth of the disciple, who gives them back to him, but word and thing,
history and doctrine are surrounded by a bright cloud of the suprahistorical. It is easy to
shew that this Gospel could as little have been written without Hellenism, as Luther's treatise
on the freedom of a Christian man could have been written without the “Deutsche Theologie.”
But the reference to Philo and Hellenism is by no means sufficient here, as it does not satis-
factorily explain even one of the external aspects of the problem. The elements operative in
the Johannine theology were not Greek Theologoumena—even the Logos has little more
in common with that of Philo than the name, and its mention at the be-ginning of the book
is a mystery, not the solution of one93—but the Apostolic testimony concerning Christ has
created from the old faith of Psalmists and Prophets, a new faith in a man who lived with
98
93 In the Ztschr. für Theol. und Kirche, II. p. 1.89 if. I have discussed the relation of the prologue of the fourth
Gospel to the whole work and endeavoured to prove the following: “The prologue of the Gospel is not the key
to its comprehension. It begins with a well-known great object, the Logos, re-adapts and transforms it—implicitly
opposing false Christologies—in order to substitute for it Jesus Christ, the μονογενὴς θέος, or in order to unveil
it as this Jesus Christ. The idea of the Logos is allowed to fall from the moment that this takes place.” The author
continues to narrate of Jesus only with the view of establishing the belief that he is the Messiah, the Son of God.
This faith has for its main article the recognition that Jesus is descended from God and from heaven; but the
author is far from endeavouring to work out this recognition from cosmological, philosophical considerations.
85
the disciples of Jesus among the Greeks. For that very reason, in spite of his abrupt Anti
Judaism, we must without doubt regard the Author as a born Jew.
Supplement 5.—The authorities to which the Christian communities were subjected in
faith and life, were these: (1) The Old Testament interpreted in the Christian sense. (2) The
tradition of the Messianic history of Jesus. (3) The words of the Lord: see the epistles of
Paul, especially I Corinthians. But every writing which was proved to have been given by
the Spirit has also to be regarded as an authority, and every tested Christian Prophet and
Teacher inspired by the Spirit could claim that his words be received and regarded as the
words of God. Moreover, the twelve whom Jesus had chosen had a special authority, and
Paul claimed a similiar authority for himself (διατάξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων). Consequently,
there were numerous courts of appeal in the earliest period of Christendom, of diverse kinds
and by no means strictly defined. In the manifold gifts of the spirit was given a fluid element
indefinable in its range and scope, an element which guaranteed freedom of development,
but which also threatened to lead the enthusiastic communities to extravagance.
Literature.—Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 1884. Beyschlag, New
Testament Theology, 1892. Ritschl, Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche, 2 Edit. 1857.
Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, 1864. Baur, The Apostle Paul,
1866. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, 1868. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 1873:
also, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879. Renan,
Origins of Christianity, Vols. II.—IV. Havet, Le Christianisme et ses orig. T. IV. 1884.
Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Age, 1885. Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age, 1892.
Hatch, Article “Paul” in the Encyclopædia Britannica. Everett, The Gospel of Paul. Boston,
1893. On the origin and earliest history of the Christian proofs from prophecy, see my “Texte
und Unters. z. Gesch. der Alt-Christl.” Lit. I. 3, p. 56 f.
§ 4. The Current Exposition of the Old Testament, and the Jewish hopes of the future, in
their significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching. 99
According to the Evangelist, Jesus proves himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, in virtue of his self-testimony,
and because he has brought a full knowledge of God and life—purely supernatural divine blessings. (Cf. besides,
and partly in opposition, Holtzmann, i. d. Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1893.) The author's peculiar world of
theological ideas, is not, however, so entirely isolated in the early Christian literature as appears on the first
impression. If, as is probable, the Ignatian Epistles are independent of the Gospel of John, further, the Supper
prayer in the Didache, finally, certain mystic theological phrases in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the second epistle
of Clement, and in Hermas: a complex of Theologoumena may be put together, which reaches back to the
primitive period of the Church, and may be conceived as the general ground for the theology of John. This
complex has on its side a close connection with the final development of the Jewish Hagiographic literature
under Greek influence.
86
Instead of the frequently very fruitless investigations about “Jewish-Christian”, and

“Gentile-Christian”, it should be asked, What Jewish elements have been naturalised in the
Christian Church, which were in no way demanded by the contents of the Gospel? Have
these elements been simply weakened in course of the development, or have some of them
been strengthened by a peculiar combination with the Greek? We have to do here, in the
first instance, with the doctrine of Demons and Angels, the view of history, the growing
exclusiveness, the fanaticism; and on the other hand, with the cultus, and the Theocracy,
expressing itself in forms of law.
1. Although Jesus had in principle abolished the methods of pedantry, the casuistic
treatment of the law, and the subtleties of prophetic interpretation, yet the old Scholastic
exegesis remained active in the Christian communities above all the unhistorical local
method in the exposition of the Old Testament, both allegoristic and Haggadic; for in the
exposition of a sacred text—and the Old Testament was regarded as such—one is always
required to look away from its historical limitations and to expound it according to the
needs of the present.94 The traditional view exercised its influence on the exposition of the
Old Testament, as well as on the representations of the person, fate and deeds of Jesus, espe-
cially in those cases where the question was about the proof of the fulfilment of prophecy,
that is, of the Messiahship of Jesus. (See above § 3, 2.) Under the impression made by the
history of Jesus it gave to many Old Testament passages a sense that was foreign to them,
and, on the other hand, enriched the life of Jesus with new facts, turning the interest at the
same time to details which were frequently unreal and seldom of striking importance.95
100
94 The Jewish religion, specially since the (relative) close of the canon, had become more and more a religion
of the Book.
95 Examples of both in the New Testament are numerous. See above all, Matt. I. II. Even the belief that Jesus
was born of a Virgin sprang from Isaiah VII. 14. It cannot, however, be proved to be in the writings of Paul (the
two genealogies in Matt. and Luke directly exclude it: according to Dillmann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. p. 192 ff.
Luke I. 34, 35 would be the addition of a redactor); but it must have arisen very early, as the Gentile Christians
of the second century would seem to have unanimously confessed it (see the Romish Symbol. Ignatius, Aristides,
Justin, etc.). For the rest, it was long before theologians recognised in the Virgin birth of Jesus more than fulfilment
of a prophecy, viz., a fact of salvation. The conjecture of Usener, that the idea of the birth from a Virgin is a
heathen myth which was received by the Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian
tradition, which is free from heathen myths so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of Jews,
(above all, certain Babylonian and Persian Myths), which in the case of that idea is not demonstrable. Besides,
it is in point of method not permissible to stray so far when we have near at hand such a complete explanation
as Isaiah VII. 14. Those who suppose that the reality of the Virgin birth must be held fast, must assume that a
misunderstood prophecy has been here fulfilled (on the true meaning of the passage see Dillmann [Jesajas, 5
87
2. The Jewish Apocalyptic literature, especially as it flourished since the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, and was impregnated with new elements borrowed from an ethico-religious
philosophy, as well as with Babylonian and Persian myths (Greek myths can only be detected
in very small number), was not banished from the circles of the first professors of the Gospel,
but was rather held fast, eagerly read, and even extended with the view of elucidating the
promises of Jesus.96 Though their contents seem to have been modified on Christian soil,
and especially the uncertainty about the person of the Messiah exalted to victory and coming
to judgment,97 yet the sensuous earthly hopes were in no way repressed. Green fat meadows
101
and sulphurous abysses, white horses and frightful beasts, trees of life, splendid cities, war
and blood-shed filled the fancy,98 and threatened to obscure the simple and yet, at bottom,
much more affecting maxims about the judgment which is certain to every individual soul,
and drew the confessors of the Gospel into a restless activity, into politics, and abhorrence
Aufl. p. 69]: “of the birth by a Virgin [i.e., of one who at the birth was still a Virgin.] the Hebrew text says nothing
. . . Immanuel as beginning and representative of the new generation, from which one should finally take pos-
session of the king's throne”). The application of an unhistorical local method in the exposition of the Old
Testament—Haggada and Rabbinic allegorism—may be found in many passages of Paul (see, e.g., Gal. III. 16,
19; IV. 22–31; 1 Cor. IX. 9; X. 4; XI. 10; Rom. IV. etc.).
96 The proof of this may be found in the quotations in early Christian writings from the Apocalypses of Enoch,
Ezra, Eldad and Modad, the assumption of Moses and other Jewish Apocalypses unknown to us. They were re-
garded as Divine revelations beside the Old Testament; see the proofs of their frequent and long continued use
in Schürer's “History of the Jewish people in the time of our Lord.” But the Christians in receiving these Jewish
Apocalypses did not leave them intact, but adapted them with greater or less Christian additions (see Esra,
Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah). Even the Apocalypse of John is, as Vischer (Texte u. Unters. 3 altchristl. lit. Gesch.
Bd. II. H. 4) has shown, a Jewish Apocalypse adapted to a Christian meaning. But in this activity, and in the
production of little Apocalyptic prophetic sayings and articles, (see in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in those
of Barnabas and Clement) the Christian labour here in the earliest period seems to have exhausted itself. At least
we do not know with certainty of any great Apocalyptic writing of an original kind proceeding from Christian
circles. Even the Apocalypse of Peter which, thanks to the discovery of Bouriant, we now know better, is not a
completely original work as contrasted with the Jewish Apocalypses.
97 The Gospel reliance on the Lamb who was slain very significantly pervades the Revelation of John, that is,
its Christian parts. Even the Apocalypse of Peter shews Jesus Christ as the comfort of believers and as the Revealer
of the future. In it (v. 3,) Christ says; “Then will God come to those who believe on me, those who hunger and
thirst and mourn, etc.”
98 These words were written before the Apocalypse of Peter was discovered. That Apocalypse confirms what
is said in the text. Moreover, its delineation of Paradise and blessedness are not wanting in poetic charm and
power. In its delineation of Hell, which prepares the way for Dante's Hell, the author is scared by no terror.
88
of the State. It was an evil inheritance which the Christians took over from the Jews,99 an
inheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce with certainty the eschatological sayings
of Jesus. Things directly foreign were mixed up with them, and, what. was most serious,
delineations of the hopes of the future could easily lead to the undervaluing of the most
important gifts and duties of the Gospel.100
3. A wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalised and legitimised101 in the
Christian communities, chiefly by the reception of the Apocalyptic literature, but also by 102
the reception of artificial exegesis and Haggada. Most important for the following period
were the speculations about Messiah, which were partly borrowed from expositions of the
Old Testament and from the Apocalypses, partly formed in-dependently, according to
methods the justice of which no one contested, and the application of which seemed to give
a firm basis to religious faith.
Some of the Jewish Apocalyptists had already attributed pre-existence to the expected
Messiah, as to other precious things in the Old Testament history and worship, and, without
any thought of denying his human nature, placed him as already existing before his appearing
in a series of angelic beings.102 This took place in accordance with an established method
of speculation, so far as an attempt was made thereby to express the special value of an em-
piric object, by distinguishing between the essence and the inadequate form of appearance,
103
99 These ideas, however, encircled the earliest Christendom as with a wall of fire, and preserved it from a too
early contact with the world.
100 An accurate examination of the eschatological sayings of Jesus in the synoptists shews that much foreign
matter is mixed with them (see Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1875). That the tradition here was
very uncertain, because influenced by the Jewish Apocalyptic, is shewn by the one fact that Papias (in Iren. V.
33) quotes as words of the Lord which had been handed down by the disciples, a group of sayings which we find
in the Apocalypse of Baruch, about the amazing fruitfulness of the earth during the time of the Messianic
Kingdom.
101 We may here call attention to an interesting remark of Goethe. Among his Apophthegms (no. 537) is the
following: “Apocrypha: It would be important to collect what is historically known about these books, and to
shew that these very Apocryphal writings with which the communities of the first centuries of our era were
flooded, were the real cause why Christianity at no moment of political or Church history could stand forth in
all her beauty and purity.” A historian would not express himself in this way, but yet there lies at the root of this
remark a true historical insight.
102 See Schürer, History of the Jewish people. Div. II. vol. II. p. 160 f.; yet the remarks of the Jew Trypho in
the dialogue of Justin shew that the notions of a pre-existent Messiah were by no means very widely spread in
Judaism. (See also Orig. c. Cels. 1. 49: “A Jew would not at all admit that any Prophet had said the Son of God
will come; they avoided this designation and used instead the saying, the anointed of God will come.”) The
Apocalyptists and Rabbis attributed pre-existence, that is, a heavenly origin, to many sacred things and persons,
89
hypostatising the essence, and exalting it above time and space. But when a later appearance
was conceived as the aim of a series of preparations, it was frequently hypostatised and
placed above these preparations even in time. The supposed aim was, in a kind of real exist-
ence, placed, as first cause, before the means which were destined to realise it on earth.103
such as the Patriarchs, Moses, the Tabernacle, the Temple vessels, the city of Jerusalem. That the true Temple
and the real Jerusalem were with God in heaven and would come down from heaven at the appointed time,
must have been a very wide-spread idea, especially at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and even earlier
than that (see Gal. IV. 26: Rev. XXI. 2: Heb. XII. 22). In the Assumption of Moses (c. I) Moses says of himself:
Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum præparatus sum, ut sim arbiter (μεσίτης) testamenti illius
(τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ). In the Midrasch Bereschith rabba VIII. 2. we read, “R. Simeon ben Lakisch says, 'The law
was in existence 2000 years before the creation of the world.’” In the Jewish treatise Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ, which
Origen has several times quoted, Jacob says of himself (ap. Orig. torn. II. in Joann. c. 25. Op. IV. 84: “ὁ γὰρ
λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγω Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραήλ, ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ πνεῦμα ἀρχικὸν καὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ
προεκτίσθησαν προ παντος ἔργου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ . . . . ἐγὼ πρωτογονος παντὸ ζώος ζωουμένου ὑπὸ θεοῦ.”
These examples could easily be increased. The Jewish speculations about Angels and Mediators, which at the
time of Christ grew very luxuriantly among the Scribes and Apocalyptists, and endangered the purity and vitality
of the Old Testament idea of God, were also very important for the development of Christian dogmatics. But
neither these speculations, nor the notions of heavenly Archetypes, nor of pre-existence, are to be referred to
Hellenic influence. This may have co-operated here and there, but the rise of these speculations in Judaism is
not to be explained by it; they rather exhibit the Oriental stamp. But, of course, the stage in the development of
the nations had now been reached, in which the creations of Oriental fancy and Mythology could be fused with
the ideal conceptions of Hellenic philosophy.
103 The conception of heavenly ideals of precious earthly things followed from the first naive method of
speculation we have mentioned, that of a pre-existence of persons from the last. If the world was created for the
sake of the people of Israel, and the Apocalyptists expressly taught that, then it follows that in the thought of
God Israel was older than the world. The idea of a kind of pre-existence of the people of Israel follows from this.
We can still see this process of thought very plainly in the shepherd of Hermas, who expressly declares that the
world was created for the sake of the Church. In consequence of this he maintains that the Church was very old,
and was created before the foundation of the world. See Vis. I. 2. 4: II. 4. 11: Διατί οὖν πρεσβυτέρα (sci1. ἡ
ἐκκλησία): Ὅτι, φησίν, πάντων πρώτη ἐκτισθη διὰ τοῦτο πρεσβυτέρα, καὶ διὰ ταύτην ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη.
But in order to estimate aright the bearing of these speculations, we must observe that, according to them, the
precious things and persons, so far as they are now really manifested, were never conceived as endowed with a
double nature. No hint is given of such an assumption; the sensible appearance was rather conceived as a mere
wrapping which was necessary only to its becoming visible, or, conversely, the pre-existence or the archetype
was no longer thought of in presence of the historical appearance of the object. That pneumatic form of existence
was not set forth in accordance with the analogy of existence verified by sense, but was left in suspense. The idea
of “existence” here could run through all the stages which, according to the Mythology and Metaphysic of the
time, lay between what we now call “valid,” and the most concrete being. He who nowadays undertakes to justify
90
Some of the first confessors of the Gospel, though not all the writers of the New Testa-
ment, in accordance with the same method, went beyond the declarations which Jesus 104
himself had made about his person, and endeavoured to conceive its value and absolute
significance abstractly and speculatively. The religious convictions (see § 3. 2): (1) That the
founding of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the mission of Jesus as the perfect mediator,
were from eternity based on God's plan of Salvation, as his main purpose; (2) that the exalted
Christ was called into a position of Godlike Sovereignty belonging to him of right; (3) that
God himself was manifested in Jesus, and that he therefore surpasses all mediators of the
Old Testament, nay, even all angelic powers,—these convictions with some took the form
that Jesus pre-existed, and that in him has appeared and taken flesh a heavenly being fash-
ioned like God, who is older than the world, nay, its creative principle.104 The conceptions
of the old Teachers, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the author
of the first Epistle of Peter, the fourth Evangelist, differ in many ways when they attempt to
define these convictions more closely. The latter is the only one who has recognised with
perfect clearness that the premundane Christ must be assumed to be θεὸς ὥν ἐν ἀρχῆ πρός
τὸν θεόν, so as not to endanger by this speculation the contents and significance of the
revelation of God which was given in Christ. This, in the earliest period, was essentially a
religious problem, that is, it was not introduced for the explanation of cosmological problems,
(see, especially, Epistle to the Ephesians, I Peter; but also the Gospel of John), and there
stood peacefully beside it, such conception as recognised the equipment of the man Jesus
for his office in a communication of the Spirit at his baptism,105 or in virtue of Isaiah VII.,
found the germ of his unique nature in his miraculous origin.106 But as soon as that specu-
105
lation was detached from its original foundation, it necessarily withdrew the minds of be-
lievers from the consideration of the work of Christ, and from the contemplation of the
the notion of pre-existence, will find himself in a very different situation from these earlier times, as he will no
longer be able to count on shifting conceptions of existence. See Appendix I. at the end of this Vol. for a fuller
discussion of the idea of pre-existence.
104 It must be observed here that Palestinian Judaism, without any apparent influence from Alexandria,
though not independently of the Greek spirit, had already created a multitude of intermediate beings between
God and the world, avowing thereby that the idea of God had become stiff and rigid. “Its original aim was simply
to help the God of Judaism in his need.” Among these intermediate beings should be specially mentioned the
Memra of God (see also the Shechina and the Metatron).
105 See Justin. Dial. 48. fin: Justin certainly is not favourably disposed towards those who regard Christ as a
“man among men,” but he knows that there are such people.
106 The miraculous genesis of Christ in the Virgin by the Holy Spirit and the real pre-existence are of course
mutually exclusive. At a later period, it is true, it became necessary to unite them in thought.
91
revelation of God which was given in the ministry of the historical person Jesus. The mystery
of the person of Jesus in itself, would then necessarily appear as the true revelation.107
A series of theologoumena and religious problems for the future doctrine of Christianity
lay ready in the teaching of the Pharisees and in the Apocalypses (see especially the fourth
book of Ezra), and was really fitted for being of service to it; e.g., doctrines about Adam,
universal sinfulness, the fall, predestination, Theodocy, etc., besides all kinds of ideas about
redemption. Besides these spiritual doctrines there were not a few spiritualised myths which
were variously made use of in the Apocalypses. A rich, spiritual, figurative style, only too
rich and therefore confused, waited for the theological artist to purify, reduce and vigorously
fashion. There really remained very little of the Cosmico-Mythological in the doctrine of
the great Church.
Supplement.—The reference to the proof from prophecy, to the current exposition of
the Old Testament, the Apocalyptic and the prevailing methods of speculation, does not
suffice to explain all the elements which are found in the different types of Christian
preaching. We must rather bear in mind here that the earliest communities were enthusiastic,
106
and had yet among them prophets and ecstatic persons. Such circumstances will always
directly produce facts in the history. But, in the majority of cases, it is absolutely impossible
to account subsequently for the causes of such productions, because their formation is
subject to no law accessible to the understanding. It is therefore inadmissible to regard as
proved the reality of what is recorded and believed to be a fact, when the motive and interest
which led to its acceptance can no longer be ascertained.108
107 There is the less need for treating this more fully here, as no New Testament Christology has become the
direct starting-point of later doctrinal developments. The Gentile Christians had transmitted to them, as an
unanimous doctrine, the message that Christ is the Lord who is to be worshipped, and that one must think of
him as the Judge of the living and the dead, that is, ὡς περὶ θεοῦ. But it certainly could not fail to be of importance
for the result that already many of the earliest Christian writers, and therefore even Paul, perceived in Jesus a
spiritual being come down from heaven (πνεῦμα) who was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, and whose real act of love consisted
in his very descent.
108 The creation of the New Testament canon first paved the way for putting an end, though only in part, to
the production of Evangelic “facts” within the Church. For Hermas (Sim. IX. 16) can relate that the Apostles
also descended to the under world and there preached. Others report the same of John the Baptist. Origen in
his homily on 1. Kings XXVII. says that Moses, Samuel and all the Prophets descended to Hades and there
preached. A series of facts of Evangelic history which have no parallel in the accounts of our Synoptists, and are
certainly legendary, may be but together from the epistle of Barnabas, Justin, the second epistle of Clement,
Papias, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and the Gospel to the Egyptians. But the synoptic reports themselves, especially
in the articles for which we have only a solitary witness, shew an extensive legendary material, and even in the
Gospel of John, the free production of facts cannot be mistaken. Of what a curious nature some of these were,
and that they are by no means to be entirely explained from the Old Testament, as for example, Justin's account
92
Moreover, if we consider the conditions, outer and inner, in which the preaching of
Christ in the first decades was placed, conditions which in every way threatened the Gospel
with extravagance, we shall only see cause to wonder that it continued to shine forth amid
all its wrappings. We can still, out of the strangest “fulfilments”, legends and mythological
ideas, read the religious conviction that the aim and goal of history is disclosed in the history
107
of Christ, and that the Divine has now entered into history in a pure form.
Literature.—The Apocalypses of Daniel, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra; Schürer, History
of the Jewish People in the time of Christ; Baldensperger, in the work already mentioned.
Weber, System der Altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, 1880, Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures,
1883. Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik, 1859. Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel
and Judah, 1887. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, 1869. Other literature in
Schürer. The essay of Hellwag in the Theol. Jahrb. von Baur and Zeller, 1848, “Die Vorstellung
von der Präexistenz Christi in der ältesten Kirche”, is worth noting; also Joël; Blicke in die
Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts, 1880— 1883.
§ 5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious Philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews, in
their significance for the later formulation of the Gospel.
1. From the remains of the Jewish Alexandrian literature and the Jewish Sibylline writ-
ings, also from the work of Josephus, and especially from the great propaganda of Judaism
in the Græco-Roman world, we may gather that there was a Judaism in the Diaspora, for
the consciousness of which the cultus and ceremonial law were of comparatively subordinate
importance; while the monotheistic worship of God, apart from images, the doctrines of
virtue and belief in a future reward beyond the grave, stood in the foreground as its really
essential marks. Converted Gentiles were no longer everywhere required to be even circum-
cised; the bath of purification was deemed sufficient. The Jewish religion here appears
transformed into a universal human ethic and a monotheistic cosmology. For that reason,
the idea of the Theocracy as well as the Messianic hopes of the future faded away or were
of the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem, having been bound to a vine, is shewn by the very old fragment
in one source of the Apostolic constitutions (Texte u. Unters. II, 5. p. 28 ff.); ὅτε ᾒτωσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος τὸν ἂρτον
καὶ τὸ ποτήριον καὶ ηὐλόγησεν αὐτὰ λέγων· τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου καὶ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἐπὲτρεψε ταύταις the
women) συστῆναι ἡμῖν . . . . Μάρθα εἶπεν διὰ Μαριάμ, ὅτι εἶδεν αὐτὴν μειδιῶταν. Μαρία εἶπεν οὐκέτι ἐγέλασα.
Narratives such as those of Christ's descent to Hell and ascent to heaven, which arose comparatively late, though
still at the close of the first century (see Book I. Chap. 3) sprang out of short formula containing an antithesis
(death and resurrection, first advent in lowliness, second advent in glory: descensus de cœlo, ascensus in cœlum;
ascensus in cœlum, descensus ad inferna) which appeared to be required by Old Testament predictions, and
were commended by their naturalness. Just as it is still, in the same way naively inferred: if Christ rose bodily
he must also have ascended bodily (visibly?) into heaven.
93
uprooted. The latter, indeed, did not altogether pass away; but as the oracles of the Prophets
were made use of mainly for the purpose of proving the antiquity and certainty of monothe-
istic belief, the thought of the future was essentially exhausted in the expectation of the dis-
108
solution of the Roman empire, the burning of the world, and the eternal recompense. The
specific Jewish element, however, stood out plainly in the assertion that the Old Testament,
and especially the books of Moses, were the source of all true knowledge of God, and the
sum total of all doctrines of virtue for the nations, as well as in the connected assertion that
the religious and moral culture of the Greeks was derived from the Old Testament, as the
source from which the Greek Poets and Philosophers had drawn their inspiration.109
These Jews and the Greeks converted by them formed, as it were, a Judaism of a second
order without law, i.e., ceremonial law, and with a minimum of statutory regulations. This
Judaism prepared the soil for the Christianising of the Greeks, as well as for the genesis of
a great Gentile Church in the empire, free from the law; and this the more that, as it seems,
after the second destruction of Jerusalem, the punctilious observance of the law110 was im-
posed more strictly than before on all who worshipped the God of the Jews.111
The Judaism just portrayed, developed itself, under the influence of the Greek culture
with which it came in contact, into a kind of Cosmopolitanism. It divested itself, as religion, 109
of all national forms, and exhibited itself as the most perfect expression of that “natural”
religion which the stoics had disclosed. But in proportion as it was enlarged and spiritualised
to a universal religion for humanity, it abandoned what was most peculiar to it, and could
not compensate for that loss by the assertion of the thesis that the Old Testament is the
109 The Sibylline Oracles, composed by Jews, from 160 B.C. to 189 A.D. are specially instructive here: see the
Editions of Friedlieb. 1852; Alexandre, 1869; Rzach. 1891. Delaunay, Moines et Sibylles dans l’antiquité judéo-
grecque, 1874. Schürer in the work mentioned above. The writings of Josephus also yield rich booty, especially
his apology for Judaism in the two books against Apion. But it must be noted that there were Jews enlightened
by Hellenism, who were still very zealous in their observance of the law. “Philo urges most earnestly to the ob-
servance of the law in opposition to that party which drew the extreme inferences of the allegoristic method,
and put aside the outer legality as something not essential for the spiritual life. Philo thinks that by exact observ-
ance of these ceremonies on their material side, one will also come to know better their symbolical meaning”
(Siegfried, Philo, p. 157).
110 Direct evidence is certainly almost entirely wanting here, but the indirect speaks all the more emphatically:
see § 3, Supplement 1. 2.
111 The Jewish propaganda, though by no means effaced, gave way very distinctly to the Christian from the
middle of the second century. But from this time we find few more traces of an enlightened Hellenistic Judaism.
Moreover, the Messianic expectation also seems to have somewhat given way to occupation with the law. But
the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as other Jewish terms certainly played a great rôle in Gentile and
Gnostic magical formulæ of the third century, as may be seen e.g., from many passages in Origen c. Celtum.
94
oldest and most reliable source of that natural religion, which in the traditions of the Greeks
had only witnesses of the second rank. The vigour and immediateness of the religious feeling
was flattened down to a moralism, the barrenness of which drove some Jews even into
Gnosis, mysticism and asceticism.112
2. The Jewish Alexandrian philosophy of religion, of which Philo gives us the clearest
conception,113 is the scientific theory which corresponded to this religious conception. The
theological system which Philo, in accordance with the example of others, gave out as the
Mosaic system revealed by God, and proved from the Old Testament by means of the alleg-
oric exegetic method, is essentially identical with the system of Stoicism, which had been
110
mixed with Platonic elements and had lost its Pantheistic materialistic impress. The funda-
mental idea from which Philo starts is a Platonic one; the dualism of God and the world,
spirit and matter. The idea of God itself is therefore abstractly and negatively conceived
(God, the real substance which is not finite), and has nothing more in common with the
Old Testament conception. The possibility, however, of being able to represent God as acting
on matter, which as the finite is the non-existent, and therefore the evil, is reached, with the
help of the Stoic λόγοι as working powers and of the Platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas,
and in outward connection with the Jewish doctrine of angels and the Greek doctrine of
demons, by the introduction of intermediate spiritual beings which, as personal and imper-
sonal powers proceeding from God, are to be thought of as operative causes and as Arche-
types. All these beings are, as it were, comprehended in the Logos. By the Logos Philo un-
112 The prerogative of Israel was, for all that, clung to: Israel remains the chosen people.
113 The brilliant investigations of Bernays, however, have shewn how many-sided that philosophy of religion
was. The proofs of asceticism in this Hellenistic Judaism are especially of great interest for the history of dogma
(see Theophrastus' treatise on piety). In the eighth Epistle of Heraclitus, composed by a Hellenistic Jew in the
first century, it is said (Bernays, p. 182). “So long a time before, O Hermodorus, saw thee that Sibyl, and even
then thou wert” (εἶδρ σε πρὸ ποσούτου αἰῶνος, Ερμόδωρε, ἡ Σίβυλλα ἐκείνη, καὶ τότε ἦσθα). Even here then
the notion is expressed that foreknowledge and predestination invest the known and the deter-mined with a
kind of existence. Of great importance is the fact that even before Philo, the idea of the wisdom of God creating
the world and passing over to men had been hypostatised in Alexandrian Judaism (see Sirach, Baruch. the wisdom
of Solomon, Enoch, nay, even the book of Proverbs). But so long as the deutero-canonical Old Testament, and
also the Alexandrine and Apocalyptic literature continue in the sad condition in which they are at present, we
can form no certain judgment and draw no decided conclusions on the subject. When will the scholar appear
who will at length throw light on these writings, and therewith or the section of inner Jewish history most inter-
esting to the Christian theologian? As yet we have only a most thankworthy preliminary study in Schürer's great
work, and beside it particular or dilettante attempts which hardly shew what the problem really is, far less solve
it. What disclosures even the fourth book of the Maccabees alone yields for the connection of the Old Testament
with Hellenism!
95
derstands the operative reason of God, and consequently also the power of God. The Logos
is to him the thought of God and at the same time the product of his thought, therefore both
idea and power. But further, the Logos is God himself on that side of him which is turned
to the world, as also the ideal of the world and the unity of the spiritual forces which produce
the world and rule in it. He can therefore be put beside God and in opposition to the world;
but he can also, so far as the spiritual contents of the world are comprehended in him, be
put with the world in contrast with God. The Logos accordingly appears as the Son of God,
the foremost creature, the representative, Viceroy, High Priest, and Messenger of God; and
again as principle of the world, spirit of the world, nay, as the world itself. He appears as a
power and as a person, as a function of God and as an active divine being. Had Philo cancelled
the contradiction which lies in this whole conception of the Logos, his system would have
been demolished; for that system with its hard antithesis of God and the world, needed a
mediator who was, and yet was not God, as well as world. From this contrast, however, it
further followed that we can only think of a world-formation by the Logos, not of a world-
creation.114 Within this world man is regarded as a microcosm, that is, as a being of Divine 111
nature according to his spirit, who belongs to the heavenly world, while the adhering body
is a prison which holds men captive in the fetters of sense, that is, of sin.
The Stoic and Platonic ideals and rules of conduct (also the Neo-pythagorean) were
united by Philo in the religious Ethic as well as in the Cosmology. Rationalistic moralism
is surmounted by the injunction to strive after a higher good lying above virtue. But here,
at the same time, is the point at which Philo decidedly goes beyond Platonism, and introduces
a new thought into Greek Ethics, and also in correspondence therewith into theoretic
philosophy. This thought, which indeed lay altogether in the line of the development of
Greek philosophy, was not, however, pursued by Philo into all its consequences, though it
was the expression of a new frame of mind. While the highest good is resolved by Plato and
his successors into knowledge of truth, which truth, together with the idea of God, lies in a
sphere really accessible to the intellectual powers of the human spirit, the highest good, the
Divine original being, is considered by Philo, though not invariably, to be above reason,
and the power of comprehending it is denied to the human intellect. This assumption, a
concession which Greek speculation was compelled to make to positive religion for the su-
114 “So far as the sensible world is a work of the Logos, it is called νεώτερος ὑιός (quod deus immut. 6. I. 277),
or according to Prov. VIII. 22, an offspring of God and wisdom: ἡ δὲ παραδεξαμένη τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα
τελεσφόροις ὠδῖσι τὸν μόνον καὶ ἀγαπητὸν αἰσθητὸν ὑιὸν ἀπεκύησε τὸνδε τὸν κὸσμον (de ebriet. 8. I. 361 f.).
So far as the Logos is High Priest his relation to the world is symbolically expressed by the garment of the High
Priest, to which exegesis the play on the word κόσμος, as meaning both ornament and world, lent its aid.” This
speculation (see Siegfried. Philo. 235) is of special importance, for it shews how closely the ideas κὸσμος and
λὸγος were connected.
96
premacy which was yielded to it, was to have far-reaching consequences in the future. A
place was now for the first time provided in philosophy for a mythology to be regarded as
revelation. The highest truths which could not otherwise be reached, might be sought for
in the oracles of the Deity; for knowledge resting on itself had learnt by experience its inab-
112
ility to attain to the truth in which blessedness consists. In this very experience the intellectu-
alism of Greek Ethics was, not indeed cancelled, but surmounted. The injunction to free
oneself from sense and strive upwards by means of knowledge, remained; but the wings of
the thinking mind bore it only to the entrance of the sanctuary. Only ecstasy produced by
God himself was able to lead to the reality above reason. The great novelties in the system
of Philo, though in a certain sense the way had al-ready been prepared for them, are the in-
troduction of the idea of a philosophy of revelation and the advance beyond the absolute
intellectualism of Greek philosophy, an advance based on scepticism, but also on the deep-
felt needs of life. Only the germs of these are found in Philo, but they are already operative.
They are innovations of world-wide importance: for in them the covenant between the
thoughts of reason on the one hand, and the belief in revelation and mysticism on the other,
is already so completed that neither by itself could permanently maintain the supremacy.
Thought about the world was henceforth dependent, not only on practical motives, it is always
that, but on the need of a blessedness and peace which is higher than all reason. It might,
perhaps, be allowable to say that Philo was the first who, as a philosopher, plainly expressed
that need, just because he was not only a Greek, but also a Jew.115
Apart from the extremes into which the ethical counsels of Philo run, they contain
nothing that had not been demanded by philosophers before him. The purifying of the af-
fections, the renunciation of sensuality, the acquisition of the four cardinal virtues, the
greatest possible simplicity of life, as well as a cosmopolitan disposition are enjoined.116 But
the attainment of the highest morality by our own strength is despaired of, and man is dir-
ected beyond himself to God's assistance. Redemption begins with the spirit reflecting on
113
its own condition; it advances by a knowledge of the world and of the Logos, and it is per-
fected, after complete asceticism, by mystic ecstatic contemplation in which a man loses
himself, but in return is entirely filled and moved by God.117 In this condition man has a
115 Of all the Greek Philosophers of the second century, Plutarch of Chäronea, died c. 125 A.D., and Numenius
of Apamea, second half of the second century, approach nearest to Philo; but the latter of the two was undoubtedly
familiar with Jewish philosophy, specially with Philo, and probably also with Christian writings.
116 As to the way in which Philo (see also 4 Maccab. V. 24) learned to connect the Stoic ethics with the authority
of the Torah, as was also done by the Palestinian Midrash, and represented the Torah as the foundation of the
world, and therewith as the law of nature: see Siegfried, Philo, p. 156.
117 Philo by his exhortations to seek the blessed life, has by no means broken with the intellectualism of the
Greek philosophy, he has only gone beyond it. The way of knowledge and speculation is to him also the way of
97
foretaste of the blessedness which shall be given him when the soul, freed from the body,
will be restored to its true existence as a heavenly being.
This system, notwithstanding its appeal to revelation, has, in the strict sense of the word,
no place for Messianic hopes, of which nothing but very insignificant rudiments are found
in Philo. But he was really animated by the hope of a glorious time to come for Judaism.
The synthesis of the Messiah and the Logos did not lie within his horizon.118
3. Neither Philo's philosophy of religion, nor the mode of thought from which it springs,
exercised any appreciable influence on the first generation of believers in Christ.119 But its
practical ground-thoughts, though in different degrees, must have found admission very
early into the Jewish Christian circles of the Diaspora, and through them to Gentile Christian
circles also. Philo's philosophy of religion became operative among Christian teachers from
the beginning of the second century,120 and at a later period actually obtained the significance
of a standard of Christian theology, Philo gaining a place among Christian writers. The
114
systems of Valentinus and Origen presuppose that of Philo. It can no longer, however, be
shewn with certainty how far the direct influence of Philo reached, as the development of
religious ideas in the second century took a direction which necessarily led to views similar
to those which Philo had anticipated (see § 6, and the whole following account).
Supplement.—The hermeneutic principles (the “Biblical-alchemy”), above all, became
of the utmost importance for the following period. These were partly invented by Philo
himself, partly traditional,—the Haggadic rules of exposition and the hermeneutic principles
of the Stoics having already at an earlier period been united in Alexandria. They fall into
two main classes: “first, those according to which the literal sense is excluded, and the alleg-
oric proved to be the only possible one; and then, those according to which the allegoric
sense is discovered as standing beside and above the literal sense.”121 That these rules per-
religion and morality. But his formal principle is supernatural and leads to a supernatural knowledge which finally
passes over into sight.
118 But everything was now ready for this synthesis, so that it could be, and immediately was, completed by
Christian philosophers.
119 We cannot discover Philo's influence in the writings of Paul. But here again we must remember that the
scripture learning of Palestinian teachers developed speculations which appear closely related to the Alexandrian,
and partly are so, but yet cannot be deduced from them. The element common to them must, for the present
at least, be deduced from the harmony of conditions in which the different nations of the East were at that time
placed, a harmony which we cannot exactly measure.
120 The conception of God's relation to the world as given in the fourth Gospel is not Philonic. The Logos
doctrine there is therefore essentially not that of Philo. (Against Kuenen and others, see p. 93.)
121 Siegfried (Philo. pp. 160–197) has presented in detail Philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture, his
hermeneutic principles and their application. Without an exact knowledge of these principles we cannot under-
stand the Scripture expositions of the Fathers, and therefore also cannot do them justice.
98
mitted the discovery of a new sense by minute changes within a word, was a point of special
importance.122 Christian teachers went still further in this direction, and, as can be proved,
altered the text of the Septuagint in order to make more definite what suggested itself to
them as the meaning of a passage, or in order to give a satisfactory meaning to a sentence
which appeared to them unmeaning or offensive.123 Nay, attempts were not wanting among
Christians in the second century—they were aided by the uncertainty that existed about the
extent of the Septuagint, and by the want of plain predictions about the death upon the
115
cross—to determine the Old Testament canon in accordance with new principles; that is,
to alter the text on the plea that the Jews had corrupted it, and to insert new books into the
Old Testament, above all, Jewish Apocalypses revised in a Christian sense. Tertullian (de
cultu fem. 1. 3,) furnishes a good example of the latter. “Scio scripturam Enoch, quæ hunc
ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in armorium Judaicum admittitur
. . . sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prædicarit, a nobis quidem nihil
omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi
habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judæis potest jam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fera
quæ Christum sonant. . . . . Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium
possidet.” Compare also the history of the Apocalypse of Ezra in the Latin Bible (Old Test-
ament). Not only the genuine Greek portions of the Septuagint, but also many Apocalypses
were quoted by Christians in the second century as of equal value with the Old Testament.
122 See Siegfried, Philo, p. 176. Yet, as a rule, the method of isolating and adapting passages of scripture, and
the method of unlimited combination were sufficient.
123 Numerous examples of this may he found in the epistle of Barnabas (see cc. 4–9), and in the dialogue of
Justin with Trypho (here they are objects of controversy, see cc. 71–73, 120), but also in many other Christian
writings, (e.g. 1 Clem. ad Cor. VIII. 3: XVII. 6: XXIII. 3, 4: XXVI. 5: XLVI. 2: 2 Clem. XIII. 2). These Christian
additions were long retained in the Latin Bible, (see also Lactantius and other Latins: Pseudo-Cyprian de aleat.
2 etc.), the most celebrated of them is the addition “a ligno” to “dominus regnavit” in Psalm XCVI., see Credner,
Beiträge II. The treatment of the Old Testament in the epistle of Barnabas is specially instructive, and exhibits
the greatest formal agreement with that of Philo. We may close here with the words in which Siegfried sums up
his judgment on Philo: “No Jewish writer has contributed so much as Philo to the breaking up of particularism
and the dissolution of Judaism. The history of his people, though he believed in it literally, was in its main points
a didactic allegoric poem for enabling him to inculcate the doctrine that man attains the vision of God by mor-
tification of the flesh. The law was regarded by him as the best guide to this, but it had lost its exclusive value,
as it was admitted to be possible to reach the goal without it, and it had, besides, its aim outside itself. The God
of Philo was no longer the old living God of Israel, but an imaginary being who, to obtain power over the world,
needed a Logos by whom the palladium of Israel, the unity of God, was taken a prey. So Israel lost everything
which had hitherto characterised her.”
99
It was the New Testament that slowly put an end to these tendencies towards the formation
of a Christian Old Testament.
To find the spiritual meaning of the sacred text, partly beside the literal, partly by ex-
cluding it, became the watchword for the “scientific” Christian theology which was possible 116
only on this basis, as it endeavoured to reduce the immense and dissimilar material of the
Old Testament to unity with the Gospel, and both with the religious and scientific culture
of the Greeks,—yet without knowing a relative standard, the application of which would
alone have rendered possible in a loyal way the solution of the task. Here, Philo was the
master; for he first to a great extent poured the new wine into old bottles. Such a procedure
is warranted by its final purpose; for history is a unity. But applied in a pedantic and strin-
gently dogmatic way it is a source of deception, of untruthfulness, and finally of total
blindness.
Literature.—Gefrörer, Das Jahr des Heils, 1838. Parthey, Das Alexandr. Museum, 1838.
Matter, Hist. de l’école d’Alex. 1840. Dähne, Gesch. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilos.
1834. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, III. 2. 3rd Edition. Mommsen, History of Rome,
Vol. V. Siegfried, Philo van Alex. 1875. Massebieau, Le Classement des Œuvres de Philon.
1889. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Drummond, Philo Judæus, 1888. Bigg, The
Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886. Schürer, History of the Jewish People. The invest-
igations of Freudenthal (Hellenistische Studien), and Bernays (Ueber das phokylideische
Gedicht; Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit; Die heraklitischen Briefe). Kuenen, Hibbert
Lectures: “Christian Theology could have made and has made much use of Hellenism. But
the Christian religion cannot have sprung from this source.” Havet thinks otherwise, though
in the fourth volume of his “Origines” he has made unexpected admissions.
§ 6. The Religious Dispositions of the Greeks and Romans in the first two centuries, and
the current Græco-Roman Philosophy of Religion.
1. After the national religion and the religious sense generally in cultured circles had
been all but lost in the age of Cicero and Augustus, there is noticeable in the Græco-Roman
world from the beginning of the second century a revival of religious feeling which embraced
all classes of society, and appears, especially from the middle of that century, to have increased
from decennium to decennium.124 Parallel with it went the not altogether unsuccessful at- 117
tempt to restore the old national worship, religious usages, oracles, etc. In these attempts,
however, which were partly superficial and artificial, the new religious needs found neither
vigorous nor clear expression. These needs rather sought new forms of satisfaction corres-
ponding to the wholly changed conditions or the time, including intercourse and mixing
of the nations; decay of the old republican orders, divisions and ranks; monarchy and abso-
lutism and social crises; pauperism; influence of philosophy on the domain of public mor-
124 Proofs in Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.

100
ality and law; cosmopolitanism and the rights of man; influx of Oriental cults into the West;
knowledge of the world and disgust with it. The decay of the old political cults and syncretism
produced a disposition in favour of monotheism both among the cultured classes who had
been prepared for it by philosophy, and also gradually among the masses. Religion and in-
dividual morality became more closely connected. There was developed a corresponding
attempt at spiritualising the worship alongside of and within the ceremonial forms, and at
giving it a direction towards the moral elevation of man through the ideas of moral person-
ality, conscience, and purity, The ideas of repentance and of expiation and healing of the
soul became of special importance, and consequently such Oriental cults came to the front
as required the former and guaranteed the latter. But what was sought above all, was to enter
into an inner union with the Deity, to be saved by him and become a partaker in the posses-
sion and enjoyment of his life. The worshipper consequently longed to find a “præsens
numen” and the revelation of him in the cultus, and hoped to put himself in possession of
the Deity by asceticism and mysterious rites. This new piety longed for health and purity
of soul, and elevation above earthly things, and in connection with these a divine, that is a
painless and eternal, life beyond the grave (“renatus in æternum taurobolio”). A world
beyond was desired, sought for, and viewed with an uncertain eye. By detachment from
118
earthly things and the healing of its diseases (the passions) the freed, new born soul should
return to its divine nature and existence. It is not a hope of immortality such as the ancients
had dreamed of for their heroes, where they continue, as it were, their earthly existence in
blessed enjoyment. To the more highly pitched self-consciousness this life had become a
burden, and in the miseries of the present, one hoped for a future life in which the pain and
vulgarity of the unreal life of earth would be completely laid aside (Ἐγκράτεια and ἀνάστασις).
If the new moralistic feature stood out still more emphatically in the piety of the second
century, it vanished more and more behind the religious feature, the longing after life125
and after a Redeemer God. No one could any longer be a God who was not also a saviour.126
125 See the chapter on belief in immortality in Friedländer, Sittengesch. Roms Bde. 3. Among the numerous
mysteries known to us, that of Mythras deserves special consideration. From the middle of the second century
the Church Fathers saw in it, above all, the caricature of the Church. The worship of Mithras had its redeemer,
its mediator, hierarchy, sacrifice, baptism and sacred meal. The ideas of expiation, immortality, and the Redeemer
God, were very vividly present in this cult, which of course, in later times, borrowed from Christianity: see the
accounts of Marquardt, Réville, and the Essay of Sayous, Le Taurobole in the Rev. de l’Hist. des Religions, 1887,
where the earliest literature is also utilised. The worship of Mithras in the third century became the most
powerful rival of Christianity. In connection with this should be specially noted the cult of Æsculapius, the God
who helps the body and the soul; see my essay “Medicinisches aus der ältesten Kirchengeschichte,” 1892. p. 93
ff.
126 Hence the wide prevalence of the cult of Æsculapius.
101
With all this Polytheism was not suppressed, but only put into a subordinate place. On
the contrary, it was as lively and active as ever. For the idea of a numen supremum did not
exclude belief in the existence and manifestation of sub-ordinate deities. Apotheosis came
into currency. The old state religion first attained its highest and most powerful expression
in the worship of the emperor, (the emperor glorified as “dominus ac deus noster”,127 as
“præsens et corporalis deus”, the Antinous cult, etc.), and in many circles an incarnate ideal
in the present or the past was sought, which might be worshipped as revealer of God and
as God, and which might be an example of life and an assurance of religious hope. Apotheosis
119
became less offensive in proportion as, in connection with the fuller recognition of the
spiritual dignity of man, the estimate of the soul, the spirit, as of supramundane nature, and
the hope of its eternal continuance in a form of existence befitting it, became more general.
That was the import of the message preached by the Cynics and the Stoics, that the truly
wise man is Lord, Messenger of God, and God upon the earth. On the other hand, the
popular belief clung to the idea that the gods could appear and be visible in human form,
and this faith, though mocked by the cultured, gained numerous adherents, even among
them, in the age of the Antonines.128
127 Dominus in certain circumstances means more than deus; see Tertull. Apol. It signifies more than Soter:
see Irenæus I. 1. 3; . . . . . τὸν σωτῆρα λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ γὰρ κύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θὲλουσιν—κύριος and
δεσπότης are almost synonymous. See Philo. Quis. rer. div. heres. 6: συνώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι λέγεται.
128 We must give special attention here to the variability and elasticity of the concept “θεὸς”, and indeed
among the cultured as well as the uncultured (Orig. prolegg. in Psalm. in Pitra, Anal. T. II. p. 437i according to
a Stoic source; κατ᾽ ἄλλον δέ τρόπον λέγεσθαι θεὸν ζῷον ἀθάνατον λογικὸν σπουδαῖον, ὥστε πᾶσαν ἀστείαν
ψυχήν θεὸν ὑπάρχειν, κἃν περιόχηται, ἄλλως δὲ λενεσθαι θεὸν τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ὄν ζῷνν ἀθάνατον ὡς τὰ ἐν
ἀνθρωποις σοφοῖς περιεχομένας ψυχὰς μὴ ὑπάρχειν θεούς). They still regarded the Gods as passionless, blessed
men living for ever. The idea therefore of a θεοποίησις, and on the other hand, the idea of the appearance of the
Gods in human form presented no difficulty (see Acts XIV. 11: XXVIII. 6). But philosophic speculation—the
Platonic, as well as in yet greater measure the Stoic, and in the greatest measure of all the Cynic—had led to the
recognition of something divine in man's spirit (πνεῦμα, νοῦς). Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations frequently
speaks of the God who dwells in us. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 14. 113) says: οὕτως δύναμιν λαβοῦσα
κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ μελετᾷ εἶναι θεός, κακὸν μὲν οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νομίζουσα. In Bernays' Herac-
litian Epistles, pp. 37 f. 135 f., will be found a valuable exposition of the Stoic [Heraclitian] thesis and its history,
that men are Gods. See Norden, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. griech. Philos. Jahrb. f. klass. Philol. XIX. Suppl. Bd. p.
373 ff., about the Cynic Philosopher who, contemplating the life and activity of man [κατάσκοπος], becomes
its ἐπίσκοπος, and further κύριός, ἄγγελος θεοῦ, θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις. The passages which he adduces are of
importance for the history of dogma in a twofold respect. (1) They present remarkable parallels to Christiology
[one even finds the designations, κύριος, ἀγ́ γελος, κατάσκοπος, ἐπίσκοπος, θεὸς associated with the philosophers
as with Christ, e.g, in Justin; nay, the Cynics and Neoplatonics speak of ἐπίσκοποι δαίμονες; cf. also the remarkable
narrative in Laertius VI. 102, concerning the Cynic Menedemus; οὗτὸς, καθά φησιν Ἰππόβοτος, εἰς ποσος τον
102
τερατείας ἠλ
́ ασεν, ὡσ́ τε Ἐρινύος ἀναλαβὼν σχῆμα περιῄει, λέγων ἐπισκοπος ἀφἶχθαι ἐξ Ἁί δου τῶν ἁμαρτόμένων,
ὅπως πάλιν κατιὼν ταςτα ἀπαγγέλλοι τοῖς ἐκεῖ, δαίμοσιν (2) They also explain how the ecclesiastical ἐπίσκοποι
came to be so highly prized, inasmuch as these also were from a very early period regarded as mediators between
God and man, and considered as ἐν ἀνθρώποις θεοί). There where not a few who in the first and second centuries,
appeared with the claim to be regarded as a God or an organ inspired and chosen by God (Simon Magus [cf.
the manner of his treatment in Hippol. Philos. VI. 8: see also Clem. Hom. II. 27], Apollonius of Tyana (?), see
further Tacitus Hist. II. 51: “Mariccus . . . . iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat,”; here
belongs also the gradually developing worship of the Emperor: “dominus ac deus noster.” Cf. Augustus, Inscription
of the year 25/24 B.C. in Egypt, [where the Ptolemies were for long described as Gods]: Ύπὲρ Καίσαρος
Αὐτοκράττορος θεοῦ (Zeitschrift für Ægypt. Sprache. XXXI. Bd. p. 3). Domitian: θεὸς Ἀδριανός, Kaibel Inscr.
Gr. 829. 1053. θεός Σεουῆρος Ευσεβῆς, 1061—the Antinous cult with its prophets. See also Josephus on Herod
Agrippa. Antiq. XIX. 8. 2. (Euseb. H. E. II. Io). The flatterers said to him, θεὸν προσαγορεύοντες· εἰ καί μέχρι
νῦν ὡς ἄνθρωπον ἐφοβήθημεν, ἀλλὰ τούντεῦθεν κρείττονα σε θνητῆς τῆς φύσεως ὁμολογοῦμεν. Herod
himself, § 7, says to his friends in his sickness; ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἐγὼ ἤδη καταστρέφειν ἐπιτάττομαι τὸν βίον . . . . ὁ
κληθεις ἀθάνατος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἤδη θανεῖν ἀπάγομαι). On the other hand, we must mention the worship of the
founder in some philosophic schools, especially among the Epicureans. Epictetus says (Moral. 15), Diogenes
and Heraclitus and those like them are justly called Gods. Very instructive in this connection are the reproaches
of the heathen against the Christians, and of Christian partisans against one another with regard to the almost
divine veneration of their teachers. Lucian (Peregr. II) reproaches the Christians in Syria for having regarded
Peregrinus as a God and a new Socrates. The heathen in Smyrna, after the burning of Polycarp, feared that the
Christians would begin to pay him divine honours (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 41). Cæcilius in Minucius Felix speaks
of divine honours being paid by Christians to priests. (Octav. IX. 10.) The Antimontanist (Euseb. H. E. V. 18.
6) asserts that the Montanists worship their prophet and Alexander the Confessor as divine. The opponents of
the Roman Adoptians (Euseb. H. E. V. 28) reproach them with praying to Galen. There are many passages in
which the Gnostics are reproached with paying Divine honours to the heads of their schools, and for many
Gnostic schools (the Carpocratians, for example) the reproach seems to have been just. All this is extremely in-
structive. The genius, the hero, the founder of a new school who promises to shew the certain way to the vita
beata, the emperor, the philosopher, (numerous Stoic passages might be noted here) finally man, in so far as he
is inhabited by νοῦς—could all somehow be considered as θεοί, so elastic was the concept. All these instances
of Apotheosis in no way endangered the Monotheism which had been developed from the mixture of Gods and
from philosophy; for the one supreme Godhead can unfold his inexhaustible essence in a variety of existences,
which, while his creatures as to their origin, are parts of his essence as to their contents. This Monotheism does
not yet exactly disclaim its Polytheistic origin. The Christian, Hermas, says to his Mistress (Vis. I. 1. 7) οὐ πάντοτέ
σε ὡς θεάν ἡγησάμην, and the author of the Epistle of Diognetus writes (X. 6) ταῦτα τοις ἐπιδεομένοις χορηγῶν
(i.e., the rich man) θεὸς γίνεται τῶν λαμβανόντων. That the concept θεὸς was again used only of one God, was
due to the fact that one now started from the definition “qui vitam æternam habet,” and again from the definition
“qui est super omnia et originem nescit.” From the latter followed the absolute unity of God, from the former
a plurality of Gods. Both could be so harmonised (see Tertull. adv. Prax. and Novat. de Trinit.) that one could
103
The new thing which was here developed, continued to be greatly obscured by the old
forms of worship which reasons of state and pious custom maintained. And the new piety, 120
dispensing with a fixed foundation, groped uncertainly around, adapting the old rather than
rejecting it. The old religious practices of the Fathers asserted themselves in public life gen-
erally, and the reception of new cults by the state, which was certainly effected, though with
many checks, did not disturb them. The old religious customs stood out especially on state
holidays, in the games in honour of the Gods, frequently degenerating into shameless im-
morality, but yet protecting the institutions of the state. The patriot, the wise man, the
sceptic, and the pious man compounded with them, for they had not really at bottom out-
grown them, and they knew of nothing better to substitute for the services they still rendered
to society (see the λόγος ἀληθής of Celsus).
2. The system of associations, naturalised centuries before among the Greeks, was de-
121
veloped under the social and political pressure of the empire, and was greatly extended by
the change of moral and religious ideas. The free unions, which, as a rule, had a religious
element and were established for mutual help, support, or edification, balanced to some
extent the prevailing social cleavage, by a free democratic organisation. They gave to many
individuals in their small circle the rights which they did not possess in the great world, and
were frequently of service in obtaining admission for new cults. Even the new piety and
cosmopolitan disposition seem to have turned to them in order to find within them forms
of expression. But the time had not come for the greater corporate unions, and of an organ-
ised connection of societies in one city with those of another we know nothing. The state
kept these associations under strict control. It granted them only to the poorest classes
(collegia tenuiorum) and had the strictest laws in readiness for them. These free unions,
however, did not in their historical importance approach the fabric of the Roman state in
122
which they stood. That represented the union of the greater part of humanity under one
head, and also more and more under one law. Its capital was the capital of the world, and
also, from the beginning of the third century, of religious syncretism. Hither migrated all
who desired to exercise an influence on the great scale: Jew, Chaldean, Syrian priest, and
Neoplatonic teacher. Law and Justice radiated from Rome to the provinces, and in their
light nationalities faded away, and a cosmopolitanism was developed which pointed beyond
itself, because the moral spirit can never find its satisfaction in that which is realised. When
that spirit finally turned away from all political life, and after having laboured for the en-
nobling of the empire, applied itself, in Neoplatonism, to the idea of a new and free union
of men, this certainly was the result of the felt failure of the great creation, but it nevertheless
had that creation for its presupposition. The Church appropriated piecemeal the great ap-
assume that the God qui est super omnia, might allow his monarchy to be administered by several persons, and
might dispense the gift of immortality and with it a relative divinity.
104
paratus of the Roman state, and gave new powers, new significance and respect to every
article that had been depreciated. But what is of greatest importance is that the Church by
her preaching would never have gained whole circles, but only individuals, had not the
universal state already produced a neutralising of nationalities and brought men nearer each
other in temper and disposition.
3. Perhaps the most decisive factor in bringing about the revolution of religious and
moral convictions and moods, was philosophy, which in almost all its schools and repres-
entatives, had deepened ethics, and set it more and more in the fore-ground. After Possidoni-
us, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius of the Stoical school, and men like Plutarch of
the Platonic, attained to an ethical view, which, though not very clear in principle (knowledge,
resignation, trust in God), is hardly capable of improvement in details. Common to them
all, as distinguished from the early Stoics, is the value put upon the soul, (not the entire
human nature), while in some of them there comes clearly to the front a religious mood, a
longing for divine help, for redemption and a blessed life beyond the grave, the effort to
obtain and communicate a religious philosophical therapeutic of the soul.129 From the be-
123
ginning of the second century, however, already announced itself that eclectic philosophy
based on Platonism, which after two or three generations appeared in the form of a school,
and after three generations more was to triumph over all other schools. The several elements
of the Neoplatonic philosophy, as they were already foreshadowed in Philo, are clearly seen
in the second century, viz., the dualistic opposition of the divine and the earthly, the abstract
conception of God, the assertion of the unknowableness of God, scepticism with regard to
sensuous experience, and distrust with regard to the powers of the understanding, with a
greater readiness to examine things and turn to account the result of former scientific labour;
further, the demand of emancipation from sensuality by means of asceticism, the need of
authority, belief in a higher revelation, and the fusion of science and religion. The legitimising
of religious fancy in the province of philosophy was already begun. The myth was no longer
merely tolerated and re-interpreted as formerly, but precisely the mythic form with the
meaning imported into it was the precious element.130 There were, however, in the second
129 The longing for redemption and divine help is, for example, clearer in Seneca than in the Christian
philosopher, Minucius Felix: see Kühn, Der Octavius des M. F. 1882, and Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. No. 6.
130 See the so-called Neopythagorean philosophers and the so-called forerunners of Neoplatonism. (Cf. Bigg,
The Platonists of Alexandria, p. 250, as to Numenius.) Unfortunately, we have as yet no sufficient investigation
of the question what influence, if any, the Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy of religion had on the development
of Greek philosophy in the second and third centuries. The answering of the question would be of the greatest
importance. But at present it cannot even be said whether the Jewish philosophy of religion had any influence
on the genesis of Neoplatonism. On the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity and their mutual approximation,
see the excellent account in Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, pp. 574-618. Cf. also Réville,, La Religion à Rome.
1886.
105
century numerous representatives of every possible philosophic view. To pass over the
frivolous writers of the day, the Cynics criticised the traditional mythology in the interests
of morality and religion.131 But there were also men who opposed the “ne quid nimis” to
every form of practical scepticism, and to religion at the same time, and were above all intent
124
on preserving the state and society, and on fostering the existing arrangements which ap-
peared to be threatened far more by an intrusive religious than by a nihilistic philosophy.132
Yet men whose interest was ultimately practical and political, became ever more rare, espe-
cially as from the death of Marcus Aurelius, the maintenance of the state had to be left more
and more to the sword of the Generals. The general conditions from the end of the second
century were favourable to a philosophy which no longer in any respect took into real con-
sideration the old forms of the state.
The theosophic philosophy which was prepared for in the second century,133 was, from
the stand-point of enlightenment and knowledge of nature, a relapse; but it was the expression
of a deeper religious need, and of a self-knowledge such as had not been in existence at an
earlier period. The final consequences of that revolution in philosophy, which made consid-
eration of the inner life the starting-point of thought about the world, only now began to
be developed. The ideas of a divine, gracious providence, of the relationship of all men, of
universal brotherly love, of a ready forgiveness of wrong, of forbearing patience, of insight
into one's own weakness—affected no doubt with many shadows—became, for wide circles,
a result of the practical philosophy of the Greeks as well as the conviction of inherent sinful-
ness, the need of redemption, and the eternal value and dignity of a human soul which finds
125
rest only in God. These ideas, convictions and rules, had been picked up in the long journey
from Socrates to Ammonius Saccas: at first, and for long afterwards, they crippled the interest
in a rational knowledge of the world; but they deepened and enriched the inner life, and
therewith the source of all knowledge. Those ideas, however, lacked as yet the certain coher-
ence, but, above all, the authority which could have raised them above the region of wishes,
131 The Christians, that is the Christian preachers, were most in agreement with the Cynics (see Lucian's
Peregrinus Proteus), both on the negative and on the positive side; but for that very reason they were hard on
one another (Justin and Tatian against Crescens)—not only because the Christians gave a different basis for the
right mode of life from the Cynics, but above all, because they did not approve of the self-conscious, contemp-
tuous, proud disposition which Cynicism produced in many of its adherents. Morality frequently underwent
change for the worse in the hands of Cynics, and became the morality of a “Gentleman,” such as we have also
experience of in modern Cynicism.
132 The attitude of Celsus, the opponent of the Christians, is specially instructive here.
133 For the knowledge of the spread of the idealistic philosophy the statement of Origen (c. Celsum VI. 2)
that Epictetus was admired not only by scholars, but also by ordinary people who felt in themselves the impulse
to be raised to something higher, is well worthy of notice.
106
presentiments, and strivings, and have given them normative authority in a community of
men. There was no sure revelation, and no view of history which could be put in the place
of the no longer prized political history of the nation or state to which one belonged.134
There was, in fact, no such thing as certainty. In like manner, there was no power which
might overturn idolatry and abolish the old, and therefore one did not get beyond the
wavering between self-deification, fear of God, and deification of nature. The glory is all the
greater of those statesmen and jurists who, in the second and third centuries, introduced
human ideas of the Stoics into the legal arrangements of the empire, and raised them to
standards. And we must value all the more the numerous undertakings and performances
in which it appeared that the new view of life was powerful enough in individuals to beget
a corresponding practice even without a sure belief in revelation.135
Supplement.—For the correct understanding of the beginning of Christian theology,
that is, for the Apologetic and Gnosis, it is important to note where they are dependent on 126
Stoic and where on Platonic lines of thought. Platonism and Stoicism, in the second century,
appeared in union with each other: but up to a certain point they may be distinguished in
the common channel in which they flow. Wherever Stoicism prevailed in religious thought
and feeling, as, for example, in Marcus Aurelius, religion gains currency as natural religion
in the most comprehensive sense of the word. The idea of revelation or redemption scarcely
emerges. To this rationalism the objects of knowledge are unvarying, ever the same: even
cosmology attracts interest only in a very small degree. Myth and history are pageantry and
masks. Moral ideas (virtues and duties) dominate even the religious sphere, which in its final
basis has no independent authority. The interest in psychology and apologetic is very pro-
nounced. On the other hand, the emphasis which, in principle, is put on the contrast of
spirit and matter, God and the world, had for results: inability to rest in the actual realities
of the cosmos, efforts to unriddle the history of the universe backwards and forwards, recog-
nition of this process as the essential task of theoretic philosophy, and a deep, yearning
conviction that the course of the world needs assistance. Here were given the conditions for
the ideas of revelation, redemption, etc., and the restless search for powers from whom help
134 This point was of importance for the propaganda of Christianity among the cultured. There seemed to
be given here a reliable, because revealed, Cosmology and history of the world—which already contained the
foundation of everything worth knowing. Both were needed and both were here set forth in closest union.
135 The universalism as reached by the Stoics is certainly again threatened by the self-righteous and self-
complacent distinction between men of virtue and men of pleasure, who, properly speaking, are not men. Aristotle
had already dealt with the virtuous elite in a notable way. He says (Polit. 3. 13. p. 1284), that men who are distin-
guished by perfect virtue should not be put on a level with the ordinary mass, and should not be subjected to
the constraints of a law adapted to the average man. “There is no law for these elect, who are a law to themselves.”
107
might come, received here also a scientific justification. The rationalistic apologetic interests
thereby fell into the background: contemplation and historical description predominated.136
The stages in the ecclesiastical history of dogma, from the middle of the first to the
middle of the fifth century, correspond to the stages in the history of the ancient religion
during the same period. The Apologists, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus; the Alexandrians;
Methodius, and the Cappadocians; Dionysius, the Areopagite, have their parallels in Seneca,
Marcus Aurelius; Plutarch, Epictetus, Numenius; Plotinus, Porphyry; Iamblichus and Proclus.
127
But it is not only Greek philosophy that comes into question for the history of Christian
dogma. The whole of Greek culture must be taken into account. In his posthumous work
Hatch has shewn in a masterly way how that is to be done. He describes the Grammar, the
Rhetoric, the learned Profession, the Schools, the Exegesis, the Homilies, etc., of the Greeks,
and everywhere shews how they passed over into the Church, thus exhibiting the Philosophy,
the Ethic, the speculative Theology, the Mysteries, etc., of the Greeks, as the main factors
in the process of forming the ecclesiastical mode of thought.
But, besides the Greek, there is no mistaking the special influence of Romish ideas and
customs upon the Christian Church. The following points specially claim attention: (1) The
conception of the contents of the Gospel and its application as “salus legitima,” with the
results which followed from the naturalising of this idea. (2) The conception of the word of
Revelation, the Bible, etc., as “lex.” (3) The idea of tradition in its relation to the Romish
idea. (4) The Episcopal constitution of the Church, including the idea of succession, of the
Primateship and universal Episcopate, in their dependence on Romish ideas and institutions
(the Ecclesiastical organisation in its dependence on the Roman Empire). (5) The separation
of the idea of the “sacrement” from that of the “mystery,” and the development of the forensic
discipline of penance. The investigation has to proceed in a historical line, described by the
following series of chapters: Rome and Tertullian; Rome and Cyprian; Rome, Optatus and
Augustine; Rome and the Popes of the fifth century. We have to shew how, by the power
of her constitution and the earnestness and consistency of her policy, Rome a second time,
step by step, conquered the world, but this time the Christian world.137
Greek philosophy exercised the greatest influence not only on the Christian mode of
thought, but also through that, on the institutions of the Church. The Church never indeed 128
136 Notions of pre-existence were readily suggested by the Platonic philosophy; yet this whole philosophy
rests on the fact that one again posits the thing (after stripping it of certain marks as accidental or worthless, or
ostensibly foreign to it) in order to express its value in this form, and hold fast the permanent in the change of
the phenomena.
137 See Tzschirn. i. d. Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. XII. p 215 if. “The genesis of the Romish Church in the second
century.” What he presents is no doubt partly incomplete, partly overdone and not proved: yet much of what
he states is useful.
108
be-came a philosophic school: but yet in her was realised in a peculiar way, that which the
Stoics and the Cynics had aimed at. The Stoic (Cynic) Philosopher also belonged to the
factors from which the Christian Priests or Bishops were formed. That the old bearers of
the Spirit—Apostles, Prophets, Teachers—have been changed into a class of professional
moralists and preachers, who bridle the people by counsel and reproof (νουθετεῖν καὶ
ἐλέγχειν), that this class considers itself and de-sires to be considered as a mediating Kingly
Divine class, that its representatives became “Lords” and let themselves be called “Lords,”
all this was prefigured in the Stoic wise man and in the Cynic Missionary. But so far as these
several “Kings and Lords” are united in the idea and reality of the Church and are subject
to it, the Platonic idea of the republic goes beyond the Stoic and Cynic ideals, and subordin-
ates them to it. But this Platonic ideal has again obtained its political realisation in the
Church through the very concrete laws of the Roman Empire, which were more and more
adopted, or taken possession of. Consequently, in the completed Church we find again the
philosophic schools and the Roman Empire.
Literature.—Besides the older works of Tzschirner, Döllinger, Burckhardt, Preller, see
Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch. Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Aus-
gang der Antonine, 3 Bd. Aufl. Boissier, La Religion Romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins, 2
Bd. 1874. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before 170. London, 1893. Réville, La
Religion à Rome sous les Sévères, 1886. Schiller, Geschichte der Röm Kaiserzeit, 1883.
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 3 Bde. 1878. Foucart, Les Associations Relig. chez
les Grecs, 1873. Liebeman, Z. Gesch. u. Organisation d. Röm. Vereinswesen, 189o. K. J.
Neumann, Der Röm. Staat und die allg. Kirche, Bd. I. 1890. Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der
alten Griechen, 2 Bd. 1882. Heinrici, Die Christengemeinde Korinth's und die religiösen
Genossenschaften der Griechen, in der Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1876-77. Hatch, The
Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church. Buechner, De neocoria,
129
1888. Hirschfeld. Z. Gesch. d. röm. Kaisercultus. The Histories of Philosophy by Zeller,
Erdmann, Ueberweg, Strümpell, Windelband, etc. Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der
Griech. Philosophie, 1872. By same Author, Der Eudämonismus in der Griech. Philosophic,
1883. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philos. Schriften, 3 Thle. 1877-1883. These invest-
igations are of special value for the history of dogma, because they set forth with the greatest
accuracy and care, the later developments of the great Greek philosophic schools, especially
on Roman soil. We must refer specially to the discussions on the influence of the Roman
on the Greek Philosophy. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer, 1872.
109
Supplementary
Supplementary.
Perhaps the most important fact for the following development of the history of Dogma,
the way for which had already been prepared in the Apostolic age, is the twofold conception
of the aim of Christ's appearing, or of the religious blessing of salvation. The two conceptions
were indeed as yet mutually dependent on each other, and were twined together in the
closest way, just as they are presented in the teaching of Jesus himself; but they began even
at this early period to be differentiated. Salvation, that is to say, was conceived, on the one
hand, as sharing in the glorious kingdom of Christ soon to appear, and everything else was
regarded as preparatory to this sure prospect; on the other hand, however, attention was
turned to the conditions and to the provisions of God wrought by Christ, which first made
men capable of attaining that portion, that is, of becoming sure of it. Forgiveness of sin,
righteousness, faith, knowledge, etc., are the things which come into consideration here,
and these blessings themselves, so far as they have as their sure result life in the kingdom of
Christ, or more accurately eternal life, may be regarded as salvation. It is manifest that these
two conceptions need not be exclusive. The first regards the final effect as the goal and all
else as a preparation, the other regards the preparation, the facts already accomplished by
130
Christ and the inner transformation of men as the main thing, and all else as the natural
and necessary result. Paul, above all, as may be seen especially from the arguments in the
epistle to the Romans, unquestionably favoured the latter conception and gave it vigorous
expression. The peculiar conflicts with which he saw himself confronted, and, above all, the
great controversy about the relation of the Gospel and the new communities to Judaism,
necessarily concentrated the attention on questions as to the arrangements on which the
community of those sanctified in Christ should rest, and the conditions of admission to this
community. But the centre of gravity of Christian faith might also for the moment be removed
from the hope of Christ's second advent, and would then necessarily be found in the first
advent, in virtue of which salvation was already prepared for man, and man for salvation
(Rom. III.–VIII.). The dual development of the conception of Christianity which followed
from this, rules the whole history of the Gospel to the present day. The eschatological view
is certainly very severely repressed, but it always breaks out here and there, and still guards
the spiritual from the secularisation which threatens it. But the possibility of uniting the
two conceptions in complete harmony with each other, and on the other hand, of expressing
them antithetically, has been the very circumstance that has complicated in an extraordinary
degree the progress of the development of the history of dogma. From this follows the anti-
thesis, that from that conception which somehow recognises salvation itself in a present
spiritual possession, eternal life in the sense of immortality may be postulated as final result,
though not a glorious kingdom of Christ on earth; while, conversely, the eschatological view
must logically depreciate every blessing which can be possessed in the present life.
110
Supplementary
It is now evident that the theology, and, further, the Hellenising, of Christianity, could
arise and has arisen in connection, not with the eschatological, but only with the other
conception. Just because the matters here in question were present spiritual blessings, and
because, from the nature of the case, the ideas of forgiveness of sin, righteousness, knowledge,
131
etc., were not so definitely outlined in the early tradition, as the hopes of the future, concep-
tions entirely new and very different, could, as it were, be secretly naturalised. The spiritual
view left room especially for the great contrast of a religious and a moralistic conception,
as well as for a frame of mind which was like the eschatological in so far as, according to it,
faith and knowledge were to be only preparatory blessings in contrast with the peculiar
blessing of immortality, which of course was contained in them. In this frame of mind the
illusion might easily arise that this hope of immortality was the very kernel of those hopes
of the future for which old concrete forms of expression were only a temporary shell. But
it might further be assumed that contempt for the transitory and finite as such, was
identical with contempt for the kingdom of the world which the returning Christ would
destroy.
The history of dogma has to shew how the old eschatological view was gradually repressed
and transformed in the Gen-tile Christian communities, and how there was finally developed
and carried out a spiritual conception in which a strict moralism counterbalanced a luxurious
mysticism, and wherein the results of Greek practical philosophy could find a place. But we
must here refer to the fact, which is already taught by the development in the Apostolic age,
that Christian dogmatic did not spring from the eschatological, but from the spiritual mode
of thought. The former had nothing but sure hopes and the guarantee of these hopes by the
Spirit, by the words of prophecy and by the apocalyptic writings. One does not think, he
lives and dreams, in the eschatological mode of thought; and such a life was vigorous and
powerful till beyond the middle of the second century. There can be no external authorities
here; for one has at every moment the highest authority in living operation in the Spirit. On
the other hand, not only does the ecclesiastical christology essentially spring from the spir-
itual way of thinking, but very specially also the system of dogmatic guarantees. The co-or-
dination of λόγος θεοῦ, διδαχή κύριου, κήρυγμα τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων [word of God,
teaching of the Lord, preaching of the twelve Apostles], which lay at the basis of all Gentile
132
Christian speculation almost from the very beginning, and which was soon directed against
the enthusiasts, originated in a conception which regarded as the essential thing in Chris-
tianity, the sure knowledge which is the condition of immortality. If, however, in the following
sections of this historical presentation, the pervading and continuous opposition of the two
conceptions is not everywhere clearly and definitely brought into prominence, that is due
to the conviction that the historian has no right to place the factors and impelling ideas of
a development in a clearer light than they appear in the development itself. He must respect
the obscurities and complications as they come in his way. A clear discernment of the dif-
111
Supplementary
ference of the two conceptions was very seldom attained to in ecclesiastical antiquity, because
they did not look beyond their points of contact, and because certain articles of the eschat-
ological conception could never be suppressed or remodelled in the Church. Goethe (Dich-
tung und Wahrheit, II. 8,) has seen this very clearly. “The Christian religion wavers between
its own historic positive element and a pure Deism, which, based on morality, in its turn
offers itself as the foundation of morality. The difference of character and mode of thought
shew themselves here in infinite gradations, especially as another main distinction co-operates
with them, since the question arises, what share the reason, and what the feelings, can and
should have in such convictions.” See, also, what immediately follows.
2. The origin of a series of the most important Christian customs and ideas is involved
in an obscurity which in all probability will never be cleared up. Though one part of those
ideas may be pointed out in the epistles of Paul, yet the question must frequently remain
unanswered, whether he found them in existence or formed them independently, and ac-
cordingly the other question, whether they are exclusively indebted to the activity of Paul
for their spread and naturalisation in Christendom. What was the original conception of
baptism? Did Paul develop independently his own conception? What significance had it in
the following period? When and where did baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
133
Spirit arise, and how did it make its way in Christendom? In what way were views about
the saving value of Christ's death developed alongside of Paul's system? When and how did
belief in the birth of Jesus from a Virgin gain acceptance in Christendom? Who first distin-
guished Christendom, as ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, from Judaism, and how did the concept
ἐκκλησία become current? How old is the triad: Apostles, Prophets and Teachers? When
were Baptism and the Lord's Supper grouped together? How old are our first three Gospels?
To all these questions and many more of equal importance there is no sure answer. But the
greatest problem is presented by Christology, not indeed in its particular features doctrinally
expressed, these almost everywhere may be explained historically, but in its deepest roots
as it was preached by Paul as the principle of a new life (2 Cor. V. 17), and as it was to many
besides him the expression of a personal union with the exalted Christ (Rev. II. 3). But this
problem exists only for the historian who considers things only from the outside, or seeks
for objective proofs. Behind and in the Gospel stands the Person of Jesus Christ who mastered
men's hearts, and constrained them to yield themselves to him as his own, and in whom
they found their God. Theology attempted to describe in very uncertain and feeble outline
what the mind and heart had grasped. Yet it testifies of a new life which, like all higher life,
was kindled by a Person, and could only be maintained by connection with that Person. “I
can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me.” These convictions are not dogmas and have no history, and they can only be
propagated in the manner described by Paul, Gal. I. 15, 16.
112
Supplementary
3. It was of the utmost importance for the legitimising of the later development of
Christianity as a system of doctrine. that early Christianity had an Apostle who was a theo-
logian, and that his Epistles were received into the canon. That the doctrine about Christ
has become the main article in Christianity is not of course the result of Paul's preaching,
but is based on the confession that Jesus is the Christ. The theology of Paul was not even
the most prominent ruling factor in the transformation of the Gospel to the Catholic doctrine
134
of faith, although an earnest study of the Pauline Epistles by the earliest Gentile Christian
theologians, the Gnostics, and their later opponents, is unmistakable. But the decisive im-
portance of this theology lies in the fact that, as a rule, it formed the boundary and the
foundation—just as the words of the Lord himself—for those who in the following period
endeavoured to ascertain original Christianity, because the Epistles attesting it stood in the
canon of the New Testament. Now, as this theology comprised both speculative and apolo-
getic elements, as it can be thought of as a system, as it contained a theory of history and a
definite conception of the Old Testament,—finally, as it was composed of objective and
subjective ethical considerations and included the realistic elements of a national religion
(wrath of God, sacrifice, reconciliation, Kingdom of glory), as well as profound psychological
perceptions and the highest appreciation of spiritual blessings, the Catholic doctrine of faith
as it was formed in the course of time, seemed, at least in its leading features, to be related
to it, nay, demanded by it. For the ascertaining of the deep-lying distinctions, above all for
the perception that the question in the two cases is about elements quite differently condi-
tioned, that even the method is different,—in short, that the Pauline Gospel is not identical
with the original Gospel and much less with any later doctrine of faith, there is required
such historical judgment and such honesty of purpose not to be led astray in the investigation
by the canon of the New Testament,138 that no change in the prevailing ideas can be hoped
for for long years to come. Besides, critical theology has made it difficult to gain an insight
into the great difference that lies between the Pauline and the Catholic theology, by the one-
sided prominence it has hitherto given to the antagonism between Paulinism and Judaistic
135
Christianity. In contrast with this view the remark of Havet, though also very one-sided, is
instructive, “Quand on vient de relire Paul, on ne peut méconnaître le caractère élevé de
son œuvre. Je dirai en un mot, qu'il a agrandi dans une proportion extraordinaire l’attrait
que le judaïsme exerçait sur le monde ancien” (Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 216). That,
however, was only very gradually the case and within narrow limits. The deepest and most
138 What is meant here is the imminent danger of taking the several constituent parts of the canon, even for
historical investigation, as constituent parts, that is, of explaining one writing by the standard of another and
so creating an artificial unity. The contents of any of Paul's epistles, for example, will be presented very differently
if it is considered by itself and in the circumstances in which it was written, or if attention is fixed on it as part
of a collection whose unity is presupposed.
113
Supplementary
important writings of the New Testament are incontestably those in which Judaism is un-
derstood as religion, but spiritually overcome and subordinated to the Gospel as a new reli-
gion,—the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel and Epistle of John.
There is set forth in these writings a new and exalted world of religious feelings, views and
judgments, into which the Christians of succeeding centuries got only meagre glimpses.
Strictly speaking, the opinion that the New Testament in its whole extent comprehends a
unique literature is not tenable; but it is correct to say that between its most important
constituent parts and the literature of the period immediately following there is a great gulf
fixed.
But Paulinism especially has had an immeasurable and blessed influence on the whole
course of the history of dogma, an influence it could not have had if the Pauline Epistles
had not been received into the canon. Paulinism is a religious and Christocentric doctrine,
more inward and more powerful than any other which has ever appeared in the Church. It
stands in the clearest opposition to all merely natural moralism, all righteousness of works,
all religious ceremonialism, all Christianity without Christ. It has therefore become the con-
science of the Church, until the Catholic Church in Jansenism killed this her conscience.
“The Pauline reactions describe the critical epochs of theology and the Church.”139 One
might write a history of dogma as a history of the Pauline reactions in the Church, and in
doing so would touch on all the turning-points of the history. Marcion after the Apostolic
Fathers; Irenæus, Clement and Origen after the Apologists; Augustine after the Fathers of
the Greek Church;140 the great Reformers of the middle ages from Agobard to Wessel in 136
the bosom of the mediæval Church; Luther after the Scholastics; Jansenism after the council
of Trent:—everywhere it has been Paul, in these men, who produced the Reformation.
Paulinism has proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been.141
Just as it had that significance in Paul himself, with reference to Jewish Christianity, so it
has continued to work through the history of the Church.
139 See Bigg, The Christian Platonist of Alexandria, pp. 53, 283 ff.
140 Reuter (August. Studien, p. 492) has drawn a valuable parallel between Marcion and Augustine with regard
to Paul.
141 Marcion of course wished to raise it to the exclusive basis, but he entirely misunderstood it.
114
The Genesis of the Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the Genesis of the Catholic…
DIVISION I.
THE GENESIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA,
137
OR
THE GENESIS OF
THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC THEOLOGY,
AND
THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL

SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.
BOOK I.
THE PREPARATION.
Ἐάν μυρίους παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε ἐν χριστῷ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ

πολλους πατέρας 138
1 Cor. IV. 15.

139
Eine jede Idee tritt als ein fremder Gast in die Erschei-
nung, und wie sie sich zu realisiren beginnt, ist sie
kaum von Phantasie und Phantasterei zu unterschei-
den.
Goethe, Sprüche in Prosa, 566.
140
BOOK I
141
THE PREPARATION
115
Chapter I. Historical Survey
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE first century of the existence of Gentile Christian communities is particularly
characterised by the following features:
I. The rapid disappearance of Jewish Christianity.1
II. The enthusiastic character of the religious temper: the Charismatic teachers and the
appeal to the Spirit.2
III. The strength of the hopes for the future, Chiliasm.3
IV. The rigorous endeavour to fulfil the moral precepts of Christ, and truly represent
the holy and heavenly community of God in abstinence from everything unclean, and in
love to God and the brethren here on earth “in these last days.4
V. The want of a fixed doctrinal form in relation to the abstract statement of the faith,
and the corresponding variety and freedom of Christian preaching on the basis of clear 142
formulæ and an increasingly rich tradition.

VI. The want of a clearly defined external authority in the communities, sure in its ap-
plication, and the corresponding independence and freedom of the individual Christian in
relation to the expression of the ideas, beliefs and hopes of faith.5
VII. The want of a fixed political union of the several communities with each oth-
er—every ecclesia is an image complete in itself, and an embodiment of the whole heavenly
1 This fact must have been apparent as early as the year too. The first direct evidence of it is in Justin (Apol.
I. 53).
2 Every individual was, or at least should have been conscious, as a Christian, of having received the πνεῦμα
θεοῦ, though that does not exclude spiritual grades. A special peculiarity of the enthusiastic nature of the religious
temper is that it does not allow reflection as to the authenticity of the faith in which a man lives. As to the Cha-
rismatic teaching, see my edition of the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. 1. 2. p. 93 ff.).
3 The hope of the approaching end of the world and the glorious kingdom of Christ still determined men’s
heart; though exhortations against theoretical and practical scepticism became more and more necessary. On
the other hand, after the Epistles to the Thessalonians, there were not wanting exhortations to continue sober
and diligent.
4 There was a strong consciousness that the Christian Church is, above all, a union for a holy life, as well as a
consciousness of the obligation to help one another, and use all the blessings bestowed by God in the service of
our neighbours. Justin (2 Apol. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 17. 10) calls Christianity τὸ διδασκάλιον τῆς θείας ἀρετῆς.
5 The existing authorities (Old Testament, sayings of the Lord, words of Apostles) did not necessarily require
to be taken into account; for the living acting Spirit, partly attesting himself also to the senses, gave new revelations.
The validity of these authorities therefore held good only in theory, and might in practice be completely set
aside. (Cf., above all, the Shepherd of Hermas.)
116
Church—while the consciousness of the unity of the holy Church of Christ which has the
spirit in its midst, found strong expression.6
VIII. A quite unique literature in which were manufactured facts for the past and for
the future, and which did not submit to the usual literary rules and forms, but came forward
with the loftiest pretensions.7
IX. The reproduction of particular sayings and arguments of Apostolic Teachers with
an uncertain understanding of them.8 143
X. The rise of tendencies which endeavoured to hasten in every respect the inevitable
process of fusing the Gospel with the spiritual and religious interests of the time, viz., the
Hellenic, as well as attempts to separate the Gospel from its origins and provide for it quite
foreign presuppositions. To the latter belongs, above all, the Hellenic idea that knowledge
is not a charismatic supplement to the faith, or an outgrowth of faith alongside of others,
but that it coincides with the essence of faith itself.9
The sources for this period are few, as there was not much written, and the following
period did not lay itself out for preserving a great part of the literary monuments of that
6 Zahn remarks (Ignatius. v. A. p. VII.): “I do not believe it to be the business of that province of historical
investigation which is dependent on the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers as main sources, to explain
the origin of the universal Church in any sense of the term; for that Church existed before Clement and Hermas,
before Ignatius and Polycarp. But an explanatory answer is needed for the question: By what means did the
consciousness of the “universal Church,” so little favoured by our circumstances, maintain itself unbroken in
the post-Apostolic communities? This way of stating it obscures, at least, the problem which here lies before us,
for it does not take account of the changes which the idea “universal Church” underwent up to the middle of
the third century—besides, we do not find the title before Ignatius. In so far as the “universal Church” is set
forth as an earthly power recognisable in a doctrine or in political forms, the question as to the origin of the idea
is not only allowable, but must be regarded as one of the most important. On the earliest conception of the
“Ecclesia” and its realisation, see the fine investigations of Sohm “Kirchenrecht,” I. p. 1 ff., which, however,
suffer from being a little overdriven.
7 See the important essay of Overbeck: Ueber die Anfänge d. patrist. Litteratur (Hist. Ztschr. N. F. Bd. XII.
pp. 417-472). Early Christian literature, as a rule, claims to be inspired writing. One can see, for example, in the
history of the resurrection in the recently discovered Gospel of Peter (fragment) how facts were remodelled or
created.
8 The writings of men of the Apostolic period, and that immediately succeeding, attained in part a wide circu-
lation, and in some portions of them, often of course incorrectly understood, very great influence. How rapidly
this literature was diffused, even the letters, may be studied in the history of the Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle
of Clement, and other writings.
9 That which is here mentioned is of the greatest importance; it is not a mere reference to the so-called Gnostics.
The foundations for the Hellenising of the Gospel in the Church were already laid in the first century (50-150).
117
epoch. Still we do possess a considerable number of writings and important fragments,10

and further important inferences here are rendered possible by the monuments of the fol-
lowing period, since the conditions of the first century were not changed in a moment, but
were partly, at least, long preserved, especially in certain national Churches and in remote
communities.11
Supplement.—The main features of the message concerning Christ, of the matter of the
Evangelic history, were fixed in the first and second generations of believers, and on 144
Palestinian soil. But yet, up to the middle of the second century, this matter was in many
ways increased in Gentile Christian regions, revised from new points of view, handed down
in very diverse forms, and systematically allegorised by individual teachers. As a whole, the
Evangelic history certainly appears to have been completed at the beginning of the second
century. But in detail, much that was new was produced at a later period—and not only in
Gnostic circles—and the old tradition was recast or rejected.12
145
10 We should not over-estimate the extent of early Christian literature. It is very probable that we know, so
far as the titles of hooks are concerned, nearly all that was effective, and the greater part, by very diverse means,
has also been preserved to us. We except, of course, the so-called Gnostic literature of which we have only a few
fragments. Only from the time of Commodus, as Eusebius H. E. V. 21. 27, has remarked, did the great Church
preserve an extensive literature.
11 It is therefore important to note the locality in which a document orginates, and the more so the earlier
the document is. In the earliest period, in which the history of the Church was more uniform, and the influence
from without relatively less, the differences are still in the background. Yet the spirit of Rome already announces
itself in the Epistle of Clement, that of Alexandria in the Epistle of Barnabas, that of the East in the Epistles of
Ignatius.
12 The history of the genesis of the four Canonical Gospels, or the comparison of them, is instructive on this
point. Then we must bear in mind the old Apocryphal Gospels, and the way in which the so-called Apostolic
Fathers and Justin attest the Evangelic history, and in part reproduce it independently; the Gospels of Peter, of
the Egyptians, and of Marcion; the Diatesseron of Tatian; the Gnostic Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, etc. The
greatest gap in our knowledge consists in the fact, that we know so little about the course of things from about
the year 61 to the beginning of the reign of Trajan. The consolidating and remodelling process must, for the
most part, have taken place in this period. We possess probably not a few writings which belong to that period;
but how are we to prove this? how are they to be arranged? Here lies the cause of most of the differences, com-
binations and uncertainties; many scholars, therefore, actually leave these 40 years out of account, and seek to
place everything in the first three decennia of the second century.
118
Chapter II. The Element Common to All Christians and the Breach with Ju…
CHAPTER II.
THE ELEMENT COMMON TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND THE BREACH WITH

JUDAISM
ON account of the great differences among those who, in the first century, reckoned
themselves in the Church of God, and called themselves by the name of Christ,13 it seems
at first sight scarcely possible to set up marks which would hold good for all, or even for
nearly all, the groups. Yet the great majority had one thing in common, as is proved, among
other things, by the gradual expulsion of Gnosticism. The conviction that they knew the
supreme God, the consciousness of being responsible to him (Heaven and Hell), reliance
on Jesus Christ, the hope of an eternal life, the vigorous elevation above the world—these
are the elements that formed the fundamental mood. The author of the Acts of Thecla ex-
presses the general view when he (c. 5.7) co-ordinates τὸν τοῦ χριστοῦ λόγον, with λόγος
θεοῦ περὶ ἐγκατείας, καὶ ἀναστάσεως. The following particulars may here be specified.14
I. The Gospel, because it rests on revelation, is the sure manifestation of the supreme
God, and its believing acceptance guarantees salvation (σωτερία).
II. The essential content of this manifestation (besides the revelation and the verification
of the oneness and spirituality of God),15 is, first of all, the message of the resurrection and
eternal life (ἀνάστασις, ζωὴ ἀιώνιος), then the preaching of moral purity and continence
(ἐγκράτεια), on the basis of repentance toward God (μετάνοια), and of an expiation once
assured by baptism, with eye ever fixed on the requital of good and evil.16
III. This manifestation is mediated by Jesus Christ, who is the Saviour (σωτήρ) sent by
146
God “in these last days,” and who stands with God himself in a union special and unique,
13 See, as to this, Celsus in Orig. III. 10 ff. and V. 59 ff.

14 The marks adduced in the text do not certainly hold good for some comparatively unimportant Gnostic
groups, but they do apply to the great majority of them, and in the main to Marcion also.
15 Most of the Gnostic schools know only one God, and put all emphasis on he knowledge of the oneness,
supramundaneness, and spirituality of this God. The Æons, the Demiurgus, the God of matter, do not come
near this God though they are called Gods. See the testimony of Hippolytus c. Noet. II; καὶ γὰρ πάντες
ἀπεκλείσθησαν εἰς τοῦτο ἄκοντες εἰπεῖν, ὅτι τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ἀνατρέχει. εἰ οὖν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἕνα ἀνατρέχει καὶ
κατὰ θύαλεντῖνον καὶ κατὰ Μαρκίωνα. Κήρίνθόν τὲ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκείνων φλυαρίαν, καὶ ἄκοντες εἰς τοῦτο
περιέπεσαν, ἵνα τὸν ἕνα ὅμολογήσωσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων οὕτως οὖν συντρέχουσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ μὴ θέλοντες
τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἕνα θεὸν λέγειν ποιήσαντα ὡς ἠθέλσεν.
16 Continence was regarded as the condition laid down by God for the resurrection and eternal life. The sure
hope of this was for many, if not for the majority, the whole sum of religion, in connection with the idea of the
requital of good and evil which was now firmly established. See the testimony of the heathen Lucian, in Peregrinus
Proteus.
119
(cf. the ambiguous παῖς θεοῦ, which was much used in the earliest period). He has brought
the true and full knowledge of God, as well as the gift of immortality (γνώσις καὶ ζωἡ, or
γνώσις τῆς ζωῆς, as an expression for the sum of the Gospel. See the supper prayer in the
Didache, c. IX. and X.; εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν ὑπερ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως ἧς
ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου), and is for that very reason the redeemer (σώτηρ
and victor over the demons) on whom we are to place believing trust. But he is, further, in
word and walk the highest example of all moral virtue, and therefore in his own person the
law for the perfect life, and at the same time the God-appointed lawgiver and judge.17
IV. Virtue, as continence, embraces as its highest task, renunciation of temporal goods
and separation from the common world; for the Christian is not a citizen, but a stranger on
the earth, and expects its approaching destruction.18
V. Christ has committed to chosen men, the Apostles (or to one Apostle), the proclam-
ation of the message he received from God; consequently, their preaching represents that 147
of Christ himself. But, besides, the Spirit of God rules in Christians, “the Saints.” He bestows
upon them special gifts, and, above all, continually raises up among them Prophets and
spiritual Teachers who receive revelations and communications for the edification of others,
and whose injunctions are to be obeyed.
VI. Christian Worship is a service of God in spirit and in truth (a spiritual sacrifice),
and therefore has no legal ceremonial and statutory rules. The value of the sacred acts and
consecrations which are connected with the cultus, consists in the communication of spir-
itual blessings. (Didache X., ἡμιν δὲ ἐχαρίσω, δέσποτα, πνευματικὴν τροφήν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ
ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου).
17 Even where the judicial attributes were separated from God (Christ) as not suitable, Christ was still com-
prehended as the critical appearance by which every man is placed in the condition which belongs to him. The
Apocalypse of Peter expects that God himself will come as Judge. See the Messianic expectations of Judaism, in
which it was always uncertain whether God or the Messiah would hold the judgment.
18 Celsus (Orig. c. Celsum, V. 59) after referring to the many Christian parties mutually provoking and
fighting with each other, remarks (V. 64) that though they differ much from each other, and quarrel with each
other, you can yet hear from them all the protestation, “The world is crucified to me and I to the world.” In the
earliest Gentile Christian communities brotherly love for reflective thought falls into the background behind
ascetic exercises of virtue, in unquestionable deviation from the sayings of Christ, but in fact it was powerful.
See the testimony of Pliny and Lucian, Aristides, Apol. 15, Tertull. Apol. 39.
120
VII. Everything that Jesus Christ brought with him, may be summed up in γνώσις καὶ
ζωή, or in the knowledge of immortal life.19 To possess the perfect knowledge was, in wide
circles, an expression for the sum total of the Gospel.20
VIII. Christians, as such, no longer take into account the distinctions of race, age, rank,
nationality and worldly culture, but the Christian community must be conceived as a com- 148
munion resting on a divine election. Opinions were divided about the ground of that election.
IX. As Christianity is the only true religion, and as it is no national religion, but somehow
concerns the whole of humanity, or its best part, it follows that it can have nothing in com-
mon with the Jewish nation and its contemporary cultus. The Jewish nation in which Jesus
Christ appeared, has, for the time at least, no special relation to the God whom Jesus revealed.
Whether it had such a relation at an earlier period is doubtful (cf. here, e.g., the attitude of
Marcion, Ptolemæus the disciple of Valentinus, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Ar-
istides and Justin); but certain it is that God has now cast it off, and that all revelations of
God, so far as they took place at all before Christ, (the majority assumed that there had been
such revelations and considered the Old Testament as a holy record), must have aimed
solely at the call of the “new people”, and in some way prepared for the revelation of God
through his Son.21
19 The word “life” comes into consideration in a double sense, viz., as soundness of the soul and as immortality.
Neither, of course, is to be separated from the other. But I have attempted to shew in my essay, “Medicinisches
aus der ältesten Kirchengesch.” (1892), the extent to which the Gospel in the earliest Christendom was preached
as medicine and Jesus as a Physician, and how the Christian Message was really comprehended by the Gentiles
as a medicinal religion. Even the Stoic philosophy gave itself out as a soul therapeutic, and Æsculapius was
worshipped as a Saviour-God; but Christianity alone was a religion of healing.
20 Heinrici, in his commentary on the epistles to the Corinthians, has dealt very clearly with this matter; see
especially (Bd. II. p. 557 ff.) the description of the Christianity of the Corinthians: “On what did the community
base its Christian character? It believed in one God who had revealed himself to it through Christ, without
denying the reality of the hosts of gods in the heathen world (I. VIII. 6). It hoped in immortality without being
clear as to the nature of the Christian belief in the resurrection (I. XV.) It had no doubt as to the requital of good
and evil (I. IV. 5: 2 V. so: XI. 15: Rom. II. 4), without understanding the value of self-denial, claiming no merit,
for the sake of important ends. It was striving to make use of the Gospel as a new doctrine of wisdom about
earthly and super-earthly things, which led to the perfect and best established knowledge (1 I. 21: VIII. 1). It
boasted of special operations of the Divine Spirit, which in themselves remained obscure and non-transparent,
and therefore unfruitful (1. XIV), while it was prompt to put aside as obscure, the word of the Cross as preached
by Paul (2. IV. 1 f.). The hope of the near Parousia, however, and the completion of all things, evinced no power
to effect a moral transformation of society. We herewith obtain the outline of a conviction that was spread over
the widest circles of the Roman Empire.” Naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.
21 Nearly all Gentile Christian groups that we know, are at one in the detachment of Christianity from empiric
Judaism; the “Gnostics,” however, included the Old Testament in Judaism, while the greater part of Christians
121
149
150
did not. That detachment seemed to be demanded by the claims of Christianity to be the one, true, absolute and
therefore oldest religion, foreseen from the beginning. The different estimates of the Old Testament in Gnostic
circles have their exact parallels in the different estimates of Judaism among the other Christians; cf. for example,
in this respect, the conception stated in the Epistle of Barnabas with the views of Marcion, and Justin with
Valentinus. The particulars about the detachment of the Gentile Christians from the Synagogue, which was
prepared for by the inner development of Judaism itself, and was required by the fundamental fact that the
Messiah, crucified and rejected by his own people, was recognised as Saviour by those who were not Jews, cannot
be given in the frame-work of a history of dogma; though, see Chaps. III. IV. VI. On the other hand, the turning
away from Judaism is also the result of the mass of things which were held in common with it, even in Gnostic
circles. Christianity made its appearance in the Empire in the Jewish propaganda. By the preaching of Jesus
Christ who brought the gift of eternal life, mediated the full knowledge of God, and assembled round him in
these last days a community, the imperfect and hybrid creations of the Jewish propaganda in the empire were
converted into independent formations. These formations were far superior to the synagogue in power of attrac-
tion, and from the nature of the case would very soon be directed with the utmost vigour against the synagogue.
122
Chapter III. The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in Gentile…
CHAPTER III.
THE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE

IN GENTILE CHRISTIANITY AS IT WAS BEING
DEVELOPED INTO CATHOLICISM22
§©1. The Communities and the Church.
THE confessors of the Gospels, belonging to organised communities who recognised
the Old Testament as the Divine record of revelation, and prized the Evangelic tradition as
a public message for all, to which, in its undiluted form, they wished to adhere truly and
sincerely, formed the stem of Christendom both as to extent and importance.23 The com-
munities stood to each other in an outwardly loose, but inwardly firm connection, and every
community by the vigour of its faith, the certainty of its hope, the holy character of its life,
151
22 The statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and
motley material—cf. only the so-called Apostolic Fathers—the emphasising of this, the throwing into the
background of that element, cannot here be vindicated. It is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to
give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and thoughts which were peculiar to the Christians
of the earliest period. There was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many respects fixed, but this
complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in
the next had disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the beginnings of
knowledge, the members of the Christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only
individuals who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no other writings from the times of the
Apostolic Fathers than the first Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would he comparatively easy
to sketch a clear history of the development connecting Paulinism with the Old-Catholic Theology as represented
by Iræneus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But besides these two Epistles which are the classic monuments
of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of documents which shew us how manifold and complicated
the development was. They also teach us how carefnl we should be in the interpretation of the post-Apostolic
documents that immediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special heed to the paragraphs
and ideas in them, which distinguish them from Paulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that those
two Epistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage
of old-Catholic doctrine. Numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pass
over from the Asia Minor theology of the post-Apostolic period into the old-Catholic theology.
23 The Epistle to the Hebrews (X. 25), the Epistle of Barnabas (IV. 10), the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 26.
3), but especially the Epistle of Ignatius and still later documents, shew that up to the middle of the second
century, and even later, there were Christians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of communities,
or wished to have only a loose and temporary relation to them. The exhortation: ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνερχόμενοι
συνζητεῖτε περὶ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος (see my note on Didache XVI. 2, and cf. for the expression the interesting
State Inscription which was found at Magnesia on the Meander. Bull, Corresp. Hellen. 1883 p. 506: ἀπαγορεύω
123
as well as by unfeigned love, unity and peace, was to be an image of the holy Church of God
which is in heaven, and whose members are scattered over the earth. They were, further,
by the purity of their walk and an active brotherly disposition, to prove to those without,
that is to the world, the excellence and truth of the Christian faith.24 The hope that the Lord
would speedily appear to gather into his Kingdom the believers who were scattered abroad,
punishing the evil and rewarding the good, guided these communities in faith and life. In
152
the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” we are confronted very distinctly with
ideas and aspirations of communities that are not influenced by Philosophy.
μήτε συνέρχεσθαι τοὺς ἀρτοκόκους κατ᾽ ἑταιρίαν μήτε παρεστηκότας θρασύνεσθαι. πειθάρχεἰν δε πάντως τοῖς
ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος ἐπιταττομένοις κ.τ.λ. or the exhortation: κολλᾶσθε τοἶς ἁγίοις, ὁτ́ ι οἱ κολλώμενοι
αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται (1 Clem. 46. 2, introduced as γραφὴ) runs through most of the writings of the post-
Apostolic and pre-catholic period. New doctrines were imported by wandering Christians who, in many cases,
may not themselves have belonged to a community, and did not respect the arrangements of those they found
in existence, but sought to form conventicles. If we remember how the Greeks and Romans were wont to get
themselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long time in the religious exercises, and then, when
they thought they had got the good of it, for the most part or wholly to give up attending, we shall not wonder
that the demand to become a permanent member of a Christian community was opposed by many. The statements
of Hermas are specially instructive here.
24 “Corpus sumus,” says Tertullian, at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, “de
conscientia religionis et disciplinæ unitate et spei foedere.” (Apol. 39: cf. Ep. Petri ad Jacob. I.; εἷς θεὸς, εἷς νόμος,
μία ἐλπίς). The description was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation
with political forms, but when the consciousness of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood
(ἀδελφότης) was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem. and Corinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides,
Apol 15: “and when they have become Christians they call them (the slaves) brethren without hesitation . . . .
for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in God;” cf. also the
statements on brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have in 1 Clem. 1. 2. the delineation
of a perfect Christian Church. The Epistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each
individual community: 1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to assist stranger communities by counsel and
action, and to support the travelling brethren. As every Christian is a πάροικος, so every community is a
παροικοῦσα τὴν πόλιν, but it is under obligation to give an example to the world, and must watch that “the
name be not blasphemed.” The importance of the social element in the oldest Christian communities, has been
very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch). The historian
of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness
of moral tasks. See 1. Clem. 47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on ἀγάπη as the main requirement.
Love demands that everyone: “ζητεῖ τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ” (1. Clem. 48. 6. with parallels;
Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4. 10; Ignatius).
124
The Church, that is the totality of all believers destined to be received into the kingdom
of God (Didache, 9. 10), is the holy Church, (Hermas) because it is brought together and
preserved by the Holy Spirit. It is the one Church, not because it presents this unity outwardly,
on earth the members of the Church are rather scattered abroad, but because it will be
brought to unity in the kingdom of Christ, because it is ruled by the same spirit and inwardly
united in a common relation to a common hope and ideal. The Church, considered in its
origin, is the number of those chosen by God,25 the true Israel,26 nay, still more, the final
purpose of God, for the world was created for its sake.27 There were in connection with
these doctrines in the earliest period, various speculations about the Church: it is a heavenly
Æon, is older than the world, was created by God at the beginning of things as a companion
of the heavenly Christ;28 its members form the new nation which is really the oldest nation,29
it is the λαὸς ὁ τοῦ ἡγαπημένου ὁ φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτνόν,30 the people whom God
has prepared “in the Beloved”,31 etc. The creation of God, the Church, as it is of an
153
antemundane and heavenly nature, will also attain its true existence only in the Æon of the
future, the Æon of the Kingdom of Christ. The idea of a heavenly origin, and of a heavenly
goal of the Church, was therefore an essential one, various and fluctuating as these specula-
tions were. Accordingly, the exhortations, so far as they have in view the Church, are always
dominated by the idea of the contrast of the kingdom of Christ with the kingdom of the
world. On the other hand, he who communicated knowledge for the present time, prescribed
rules of life, endeavoured to remove conflicts, did not appeal to the peculiar character of
the Church. The mere fact, however, that from nearly the beginning of Christendom, there
were reflections and speculations not only about God and Christ, but also about the Church,
teaches us how profoundly the Christian consciousness was impressed with being a new
25 1 Clem. 59. 2, in the church prayer; ὅπως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸν κατηριθμημένον τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὅλῳ
κόσμῳ διαφυλάξῃ ἄθραυστον ὁ δημιουργὸς τῶν ἁπάντων διὰ τοῦ ἡγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
26 See 1 Clem., 2 Clem., Ignatius (on the basis of the Pauline view; but see also Rev. II. 9).
27 See Hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note.)
28 See Hermas. Vis. I.-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my edition, 2 Clem. 14: ποηοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐσόμεθα ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισμένης
. . . . ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ἐστι Χριστοῦ· λέγει γάρ ἡ γραφή· ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄρσεν καί θῆλυ.
Τὸ ἄρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία.
29 See Barn. 13 (2 Clem. 2).
30 See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. “Holy Church”, perhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch.
des N. T. lichen Kanons, II p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read; ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν, γεννῶσα εἰς ἣν ἐπηγγειλάμεθα
ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν.
31 Barn. 3. 6.
125
people, viz., the people of God.32 These speculations of the earliest Gentile Christian time
about Christ and the Church, as inseparable correlative ideas, are of the greatest importance,
for they have absolutely nothing Hellenic in them, but rather have their origin in the
Apostolic tradition. But for that very reason the combination very soon, comparatively
speaking, be-came obsolete or lost its power to influence. Even the Apologists made no use
of it, though Clement of Alexandria and other Greeks held it fast, and the Gnostics by their
Æon “Church” brought it into discredit. Augustine was the first to return to it.
The importance attached to morality is shewn in Didache cc. 1-6, with parallels.33 But
this section and the statements so closely related to it in the pseudo-phocylidean poem
which is probably of Christian origin, as well as in Sibyl, II. v. 56-148, which is likewise to
154
be regarded as Christian, and in many other Gnomic paragraphs, shews at the same time,
that in the memorable expression and summary statement of higher moral commandments,
the Christian propaganda had been preceded by the Judaism of the Diaspora, and had
entered into its labours. These statements are throughout de-pendent on the Old Testament
wisdom, and have the closest relationship with the genuine Greek parts of the Alexandrian
Canon, as well as with Philonic exhortations. Consequently, these moral rules, “the two
ways,” so aptly compiled and filled with such an elevated spirit, represent the ripest fruit of
Jewish as well as of Greek development. The Christian spirit found here a disposition which
it could recognise as its own. It was of the utmost importance, however, that this disposition
was already expressed in fixed forms suitable for didactic purposes. The young Christianity
therewith received a gift of first importance. It was spared a labour in a region, the moral,
which experience shews can only be performed in generations, viz., the creation of simple
fixed impressive rules, the labour of the Catechist. The sayings of the Sermon on the Mount
were not of themselves sufficient here. Those who in the second century attempted to rest
in these alone, and turned aside from the Judheo-Greek inheritance, landed in Marcionite
32 We are also reminded here of the “tertium genus.” The nickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-
consciousness of the Christians, (see Aristides, Apol.).
33 See also the letter of Pliny, the paragraphs about Christian morality in the first third-part of Justin’s apology,
and especially the apology of Aristides, c. 15. Aristides portrays Christianity by portraying Christian morality.
“The Christians know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth, the God by whom all things consist,
i.e., in him from whom they have received the commandments which they have written in their hearts, com-
mandments which they observe in faith and in the expectation of the world to come. For this reason they do
not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor bear false witness, nor covet that with which they are entrusted,
or what does not belong to them, etc.” Compare how in the Apocalypse of Peter definite penalties in hell are
portrayed for the several forms of immorality.
126
or Encratite doctrines.34 We can see, especially from the Apologies of Aristides (c. 15), Justin
and Tatian (see also Lucian), that the earnest men of the Græco-Roman world were won
by the morality and active love of the Christians.
155
§©2. The Foundations of the Faith.
The foundations of the faith—whose abridged form was, on the one hand, the confession
of the one true God, μὸνος ἀληθινὸς,35 and of Jesus, the Lord, the Son of God, the Saviour,36
and also of the Holy Spirit; and on the other hand, the confident hope of Christ’s kingdom
and the resurrection—were laid on the Old Testament interpreted in a Christian sense to-
gether with the Apocalypses,37 and the progressively enriched traditions about Jesus Christ.
(ἡ παράδοσις— ὁ παραδοθεὶς λόγος— ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας or τὴς παραδόσεως—ἡ πίστις—
ὁ κανών τῆς πίστεως—ὁ δοθεῖσα πίστις—τὸ κήρυγμα—τὰ διδὰγματα τοῦ χριστοῦ—ἡ
διδαχὴ—τὰ μαθήματα, or τὸ μάθημα).38 The Old Testament revelations and oracles were
156
34 An investigation of the Græco-Jewish, Christian literature of gnomes and moral rules, commencing with
the Old Testament doctrine of wisdom on the one hand, and the Stoic collections on the other, then passing
beyond the Alexandrian and Evangelic gnomes up to the Didache, the Pauline tables of domestic duties, the
Sibylline sayings, Phocylides, the Neopythagorean rules, and to the gnomes of the enigmatic Sextus, is still an
unfulfilled task. The moral rules of the Pharisaic Rabbis should also be included.
35 Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession: πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ
θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, κ.τ.λ. See Praed. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: VI. 5. 39: Aristides
gives in c. 2. of his Apology the preaching of Jesus Christ: but where he wishes to give a short expression of
Christianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those who have found the one true God. See, e. g., c.
15 “Christians have . . . . found the truth .... They know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth,
by whom all things consist, and from whom all things come, who has no other god beside him, and from whom
they have received commandments which they have written in their hearts, commandments which they observe
in faith and in expectation of the world to come.” It is interesting to note how Origen, Comm. in Joh. XXXII 9,
has brought the Christological Confession into approximate harmony with that of Hermas First, Mand. I. is
verbally repeated and then it is said: χρὴ δὲ καὶ πιστεύειν, ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ πασῃ τῇ τερὶ αὐτοῦ
κατὰ τὴν θεοτητα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· ἀληθείᾳ δεὶ δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πιστεύειν πνεῦμα, καὶ ὅτι αὐτεξούσιοι
ὄντες κολαζόμεθα μὲν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἁμαρτάνομεν, τιμώμεθα δὲ ἐφ᾽ οἷς εὖ πραττομεν.
36 Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20. 5: τῷ μόνῳ θεῷ ἀοράτῳ, πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, τῷ
ἐξαποστείλαντι ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ
τὴν ἐπουράνιον ζωήν, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα. On the Holy Spirit see previous note.
37 They were quoted as ἡ γραφὴ, τὰ βιβλία, or with the formula ὁ θεὸς (κύριος) λέγει. Also “Law and
Prophets,” “Law Prophets and Psalms.” See the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.
38 See the collection of passages in Patr. App. Opp. edit. Gebhardt. I. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11:
ἀποστόλων γένομενος μαθητὴς γὶνομαι διδάσκαλος εθνῶν, τὰ παραδοθέντα ἀξίως ὑπηρετῶν γινομένοις
127
regarded as pointing to Christ; the Old Testament itself, the words of God spoken by the
Prophets, as the primitive Gospel of salvation, having in view the new people, which is,
however, the oldest, and belonging to it alone.39 The exposition of the Old Testament, which,
as a rule, was of course read in the Alexandrian Canon of the Bible, turned it into a Christian
book. A historical view of it, which no born Jew could in some measure fail to take, did not
come into fashion, and the freedom that was used in interpreting the Old Testament,—so
far as there was a method, it was the Alexandrian Jewish—went the length of even correcting
the letter and enriching the contents.40
The traditions concerning Christ on which the communities were based, were of a
twofold character. First, there were words of the Lord, mostly ethical, but also of eschatolo-
gical content, which were regarded as rules, though their expression was uncertain, ever
changing, and only gradually assuming a fixed form. The διδάγματα τοῦ χριστοῦ are often
just the moral commandments.41 Second, the foundation of the faith, that is, the assurance
of the blessing of salvation, was formed by a proclamation of the history of Jesus concisely
expressed, and composed with reference to prophecy.42 The confession of God the Father
Almighty, of Christ as the Lord and Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit,43 was, at a very early
period in the communities, united with the short proclamation of the history of Jesus, and
157
ἀληθείας μαθηταῖς. Besides the Old Testament and the traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings
of the Jews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit, were also drawn upon. Moreover, Christian letters
and manifestoes proceeding from Apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. The Epistles of Paul were early
collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century but they were not Holy Scripture
in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified.
39 Barn. 5. 6, οἱ προφηται, ἀπὸ τοῦ κύριου ἐχοντες τὴν χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἑπροφήτευσαν. Ignat. ad Magn. 8.
2: cf. also Clem. Paedag. I. 7. 59: ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὗτος παιδαγωγὸς τότε μὲν “φοβηθήση κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἔλεγεν,
ἡμῖν δὲ “ὰγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεὸν σου” ταρῄνεσεν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐντέλλεται ἡμῖν “παύσασθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων
ὐμῶν” τῶν ταλαιῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, “μάθετε καλὸν ποιεῖν, ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποίησον ἀγαθόν, ἡγάπησας
δικαιοσύνην, ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν” αὕτη μου ἡ νέα διαθήκη παλαὶῷ κεχαραγμένη γράμματι.
40 See above §©5, p. 114 f.
41 See my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, “De disciplina arcani origine,” 1841.
42 The earliest example is 1. Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16 where already the question is about
τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον: See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2. p. 134.
43 Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt. XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem. ad. Cor. 58. 2, (see 2. 1. f.: 42. 3: 46. 6); Didache 7;
Ignat. Eph. 9. 1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. I. 2; Ascens. Isai. 8. 18: 9. 27: 10. 4: 11. 32 ff.;
Justin passim; Montan. ap. Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1. 13. Yet the
omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul; or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The
latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula, Ignat. ad Magn. 15; κεκτημένοι
ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς.
128
at the same time, in certain cases, referred expressly to the revelation of God (the Spirit)
through the prophets.44 The confession thus conceived had not everywhere obtained a fixed
definite expression in the first century (cc. 50-150). It would rather seem that, in most of
the communities, there was no exact formulation beyond a confession of Father, Son and
Spirit, accompanied in a free way by the historical proclamation.45 It is highly probable,
however, that a short confession was strictly formulated in the Roman community before
the middle of the second century,46 expressing belief in the Father, Son and Spirit, embracing
also the most important facts in the history of Jesus, and mentioning the Holy Church, as
well as the two great blessings of Christianity, the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection
of the dead (ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς47). But, however the proclamation might be handed
down, in a form somehow fixed, or in a free form, the disciples of Jesus, the (twelve) Apostles,
158
44 The formulæ run: “God who has spoken through the Prophets,” or the “Prophetic Spirit,” etc.
45 That should be assumed as certain in the case of the Egyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that
already Clement of Alexandria presupposes a symbol.
46 Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a combination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that
in Smyrna the παραδοθεὶς λόγος must have been something like the Roman Symbol, see Lightfoot on the passage;
it cannot be proved that it was identical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral element is
joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us of the Didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates.
47 See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3. ff., and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. pp. 115-142. The old
Roman Symbol reads: Πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριτὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν) ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν
μονογενῇ, (on this word see Westcott’s Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν
γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντιον Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα;
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ὅθεν
ἐρ́ χεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἁγ́ ιον, ἁγίαν ἐκκλισίαν, ἀφ
́ εσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν,
ἀμήν. To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine,
but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession
of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature polemic. (3) It tapers off into the three blessings,
Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention
of γνῶσις (ἀλήθεια) καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνος, is revealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of
note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism
of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention
of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, Ascens.
Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.). Finally, we should consider the want of the earthly
Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious
attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, “That in all es-
sential respects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion
129
confessed in Rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120”. In some “unpretending notes” (p. 37
ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline period (“it had already assumed a
more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period”), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far
as it contained, for example, “of the house of David”, with reference to Christ. “The original formula, reminding
us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the funda-
mental features so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more
and more from the Gentiles. . . . This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later
baptismal confessions of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-
220”. While up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα, it was
now changed in πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πετέρα παντοκράτορα. This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of
the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the Church,
in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the
following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside
Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot he proved; (the converse rather is probable,
that the fixed formulation proceeded from Rome). Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the
expression “more or less stereotyped form;” for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where
the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in
Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome
at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn from the wavering regulæ
fidei of Irenæus and Tertullian, which contain the “unum”; further, the “unum” is not found in the western
provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore
have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula θεὸν πάτερα παντοκράτορα
beside the more frequent θεὸν παντοκράτορα, is attested by Irenæus, I. 10. 1, a decisive passage. With our present
means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the fol-
lowing hypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case
and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period, separate Kerygmata about God and Christ: see the
Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The Kerygma about God was the confession of the one God of
creation, the almighty God. (3) The Kerygma about Christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere,
but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form κατὰ σάκρα,
κατὰ πνεῦμα, (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, καταβάς-ἀναβάς; these forms were
also partly combined. (4) The designations “Christ”, “Son of God” and “Lord”; further, the birth from the Holy
Spirit, or κατὰ πνεῦμα, the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising
of the formula “crucified under Pontius Pilate”), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment,
formed the stereotyped content of the Kerygma about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin
Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of the demonstratio veræ carnis post
resurrectionem , of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which
appeared here and there. The σάκρα λαβών, and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and
(d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution
of the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the Kerygma about God and that about Jesus into
130
were regarded as the authorities who mediated and guaranteed it. To them was traced back
in the same way everything that was narrated of the history of Jesus, and everything that
was inculcated from his sayings.48 Consequently, it may be said, that beside the Old Testa-
159
ment, the chief court of appeal in the communities was formed by an aggregate of words
and deeds of the Lord ;—for the history and the suffering of Jesus are his deed: ὁ Ἰησοῦς
160
ὑπέμεινεν παθεῖν, κ.τ.λ.,—fixed in certain fundamental features, though constantly enriched,
and traced back to apostolic testimony.49
the baptismal formula; widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, for-
giveness of sin, resurrection of the body; excluded theological theories in other respects; undertook a reduction
all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western regulæ fide do not fall back
exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer Kerygmata about God and about Jesus which
were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the regulæ fide of Irenæus and Tertullian, for example,
be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the regula. (7) The eastern confessions
(baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this
symbol, made up from the provincial Kerygmata, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however,
before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence
before Hermas, that is, about 135.
48 See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work of Papias.
49 Διδαχὴ κύριον διὰ τῶν ιβ᾽ ἀποστόλων (Διδ. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2. Pet. III. 2).
Instead of this might be said simply ὁ κύριος (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E., IV. 22. 3: See also Steph.
Gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: ὠς ὁ νομος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ
κύριος; just as even Pseudo Clem. de Virg. I. 2: “Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo
didicimus.” Polycarp (6. 3) says: καθὼς αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο καὶ οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμᾶς ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ
προφῆται οἱ προκηρύξαντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we read:
τὰ βιβλία (O. T.) καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι; τὸ εὐαγγέλιον may also stand for ὁ κύριος (Ignat., Didache. 2 Clem. etc.).
The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τ. ἀποστόλων (Justin, Tatian), or on the
other hand, as αἱ κυριακαὶ γραφαί, (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23. 12: at a later period in Tertull. and
Clem. Alex.). The words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply τά λόγια (κυριακά).
The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): ἡμεῖς καὶ Πέτρον καὶ
τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστόν, is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles
fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating
the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But
the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At a very early period there
were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the Lord, which
at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1. 4: ἵνα
ἐπιγνῶς περιὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they
formed the germ for the genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss. Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.) Further,
there were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The
131
The authority which the Apostles in this way enjoyed, did not, in any great measure,
rest on the remembrance of direct services which the twelve had rendered to the Gentile
Churches: for, as the want of reliable concrete traditions proves, no such services had been
rendered, at least not by the twelve.
On the contrary, there was a theory operative here regarding the special authority which
the twelve enjoyed in the Church at Jerusalem, a theory which was spread by the early mis-
161
sionaries, including Paul, and sprang from the a priori consideration that the tradition about
Christ, just because it grew up so quickly,50 must have been entrusted to eye-witnesses who
were commissioned to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, and who fulfilled that
commission. The a priori character of this assumption is shewn by the fact that—with the
exception of reminiscences of an activity of Peter and John among the ἔθνη, not sufficiently
clear to us51—the twelve, as a rule, are regarded as a college, to which the mission and the
tradition are traced back.52 That such a theory, based on a dogmatic construction of history,
could have at all arisen, proves that either the Gentile Churches never had a living relation
to the twelve, or that they had very soon lost it in the rapid disappearance of Jewish Chris-
tianity, while they had been referred to the twelve from the beginning. But even in the
communities which Paul had founded and for a long time guided, the remembrance of the
controversies of the Apostolic age must have been very soon effaced, and the vacuum thus
produced filled by a theory which directly traced back the status quo of the Gentile Christian
communities to a tradition of the twelve as its foundation. This fact is extremely paradoxical,
and is not altogether explained by the assumptions that the Pauline-Judaistic controversy
had not made a great impression on the Gentile Christians, that the way in which Paul,
while fully recognising the twelve, had insisted on his own independent importance, had
Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized. But there did
exist a connection between the Gospels and the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπταις καὶ ὑπηρέταις τοῦ λόγου, so far as these
mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the Kerygma of the Church about
the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will
comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were
read as Holy Scriptures.
50 Read, apart from all others, the canonical Gospels, the remains of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and
perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas: see also the statements of Papias.
51 That Peter was in Antioch follows from Gal. II.; that he laboured in Corinth, perhaps before the composition
of the first epistle to the Corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1 Cor.; Dionys. of Corinth);
that he was at Rome even is very credible. The sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested.
52 See how in the three early “writings of Peter” (Gospel, Apocalypse, Kerygma) the twelve are embraced in
a perfect unity. Peter is the head and spokesman for them all.
132
long ceased to be really understood, and that Peter and John had also really been missionaries
to the Gentiles. The guarantee that was needed for the “teaching of the Lord” must finally
be given not by Paul, but only by chosen eye-witnesses. The less that was known about them,
162
the easier it was to claim them. The conviction as to the unanimity of the twelve, and as to
their activity in founding the Gentile Churches, appeared in these Churches as early as the
urgent need of protection against the serious consequences of unfettered religious enthusiasm
and unrestrained religious fancy. This urgency cannot be dated too far back. In correspond-
ence therewith, the principle of tradition in the Church (Christ, the twelve Apostles) in the
case of those who were intent on the unity and completeness of Christendom, is also very
old. But one passed logically from the Apostles to the disciples of the Apostles, “the Elders,”
without at first claiming for them any other significance than that of reliable hearers (Apostoli
et discentes ipsorum). In coming down to them, one here and there betook oneself again
to real historical ground, disciples of Paul, of Peter, of John.53 Yet even here legends with a
tendency speedily got mixed with facts, and because, in consequence of this theory of tradi-
tion, the Apostle Paul must needs fall into the background, his disciples also were more or
less forgotten. The attempt which we have in the Pastoral Epistles remained without effect,
as regards those to whom these epistles were addressed. Timothy and Titus obtained no
authority outside these epistles. But so far as the epistles of Paul were collected, diffused,
and read, there was created a complex of writings which at first stood beside the “Teaching
of the Lord by the twelve Apostles”, without being connected with it, and only obtained
such connection by the creation of the New Testament, that is, by the interpolation of the
Acts of the Apostles, between Gospels and Epistles.54
53 See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter. ap. Iren., collecta in Parr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen.
III., p. 156 f.
54 The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of the twelve—a fact to be specially noted—was all
but unanimous (see above Chap. II.): the only one who broke through it was Marcion. The writers of Asia Minor,
Rome and Egypt, coincide in this point. Beside the Acts of the Apostles, which is specially instructive see 1 Clem.
42; Barn. 5. 9. 8. 3: Didache inscr.; Hermas. Vis. III. 5, 11; Sim. IX. 15, 16, 17, 25; Petrusev-Petrusapok. Præd.
Petr. ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48; Ignat. ad Trall. 3; ad Rom. 4; ad Philad. 5; Papias; Polyc.; Aristides; Justin passim;
inferences from the great work of Irenæus, the works of Tertull. and Clem. Alex.; the Valentinians. The inference
that follows from the eschatological hope, that the Gospel has already been preached to the world, and the
growling need of having a tradition mediated by eye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who were
in great part obscure, but who had once been authoritative in Jerusalem and Palestine, and highly esteemed in
the Christian Diaspora from the beginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal which presented itself
as not only taking a second rank after the Lord himself, but as the medium through which alone the words of
the Lord became the possession of Christendom, as he neither preached to the nations nor left writings. The
importance of the twelve in the main body of the Church may at any rate be measured by the facts, that the
personal activity of Jesus was confined to Palestine, that he left behind him neither a confession nor a doctrine,
133
and that in this respect the tradition tolerated no more corrections. Attempts which were made in this direction,
the fiction of a semi-Gentile origin of Christ, the denial of the Davidic Sonship, the invention of a correspondence
between Jesus and Abgarus, meeting of Jesus with Greeks, and much else, belong only in part to the earliest
period, and remained as really inoperative as they were uncertain (according to Clem. Alex., Jesus himself is the
Apostle to the Jews; the twelve are the Apostles to the Gentiles in Euseb. H. E. VI. 14). The notion about the
helve Apostles evangelising the world in accordance with the commission of Jesus, is consequently to be considered
as the means by which the Gentile Christians got rid of the inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of Jesus.
(Compare how Justin expresses himself about the Apostles: their going out into all the world is to him one of
the main articles predicted in the Old Testament, Apol. 1. 39; compare also the Apology of Aristides, c. 2, and
the passage of similar tenor in the Ascension of Isaiah, where the “adventus XII. discipulorum” is regarded as
one of the fundamental facts of salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. Dillmann, p. 13, and a passage such as Iren. fragm. XXIX.
in Harvey II., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of mustard seed is applied to the λόγος ἀπουράνιος, and
the twelve Apostles; the Apostles are the branches ὑφ᾽ ὧν κλάδων σκεπασθέντες οἱ πάντες ὡς ὅρνεα ὑπὸ καλιὰν
συνελθόντα μετέλαβον τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν προερχομένης ἐδωδίμου καὶ ἐπουρανίου τροφῆς Hippol., de Antichr.
61. Orig c. Cels. III. 28.) This means, as it was empty of contents, was very soon to prove the very most convenient
instrument for establishing ever new historical connections, and legitimising the status quo in the communities.
Finally, the whole catholic idea of tradition was rooted in that statement which was already, at the close of the
first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42): οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς ἀπρ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξεπόμφθη. ὁ χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ· ἐγένοντο οὖν ἀμφότερα εὐτάκτῶς ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. Here, as in all similar statements which
elevate the Apostles into the history of revelation, the unanimity of all the Apostles is always presupposed, so
that the statement of Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII., 17, 108: μία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία
οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις; see Tertull., de præscr. 32: “Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent,” Iren. alii),
contains no innovation, but gives expression to an old idea. That the twelve unitedly proclaimed one and the
same message, that they proclaimed it to the world, that they were chosen to this vocation by Christ, that the
communities possess the witness of the Apostles as their rule of conduct (Excerp. ex Theod. 25. ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τῶν
ζωδίων ἡ γένεσις διοικεῖται, οὕτως ὐπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἡ ἀναγέννησις are authoritative theses which can be
traced back as far as we have any remains of Gentile-Christian literature. It was thereby presupposed that the
unanimous kerygma of the twelve Apostles, which the communities possess as κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως (1 Clem.
7), was public and accessible to all. Yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a distance, that
besides the kerygma a still deeper knowledge was transmitted by the Apostles, or by certain Apostles, to partic-
ular Christians who were specially gifted. Of course we have no direct evidence of this; but the connection in
which certain Gnostic unions stood at the beginning with the communities developing themselves to Catholicism,
and inferences from utterances of later writers (Clem. Alex. Tertull.), make it probable that this conception was
present in the communities here and there even in the age of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. It may be definitely
said that the peculiar idea of tradition (θεός—χριστος—οἱ δώδεκα ἀποστόλοι—ἐκκλησίαι) in the Gentile Churches
is very old, but that it was still limited in its significance at the beginning, and was threatened (1) by a wider
conception of the idea “Apostle” (besides, the fact is important, that Asia Minor and Rome were the very places
where a stricter idea of “Apostle” made its appearance: See my Edition of the Didache, p. 117); (2) by free
134
prophets and teachers moved by the Spirit, who introduced new conceptions and rules, and whose word was
regarded as the word of God; (3) by the assumption, not always definitely rejected, that besides the public tradition
of the kerygma there was a secret tradition. That Paul, as a rule, was not included in this high estimate of the
Apostles is shewn by this fact, among others, that the earlier Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are much less oc-
cupied with his person than with the rest of the Apostles. The features of the old legends which make the Apostles
in their deeds, their fate, nay, even in appearance as far as possible equal to the person of Jesus himself, deserve
special consideration, (see, for example, the descent of the Apostles into hell in Herm. Sim. IX. 16); for it is just
here that the fact above established, that the activity of the Apostles was to make up for the want of the activity
of Jesus himself among the nations, stands clearly out. (See Acta Johannis ed. Zahn, p. 246: ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος ἡμᾶς
εἰς ἀποστολὴν ἐθνῶν, ὁ ἐκπέμψας ἡμας εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην θεός, ὁ δειξας ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῶν ἀποςτολῶν, also
the remarkable declaration of Origen about the Chronicle [Hadrian], that what holds good of Christ, is in that
Chronicle transferred to Peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which an Apostolic suddenly appears
as Christ.) Between the judgment of value: ἡμεῖς τούς ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστὸν, and those creations
of fancy in which the Apostles appear as gods and demigods, there is certainly a great interval; but it can be
proved that there are stages lying between the extreme points. It is therefore permissible to call to mind here
the oldest Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, although they may have originated almost completely in Gnostic
circles (see also the Pistis Sophia which brings a metaphysical theory to the establishment of the authority of
the Apostles, p. 11, 14, see Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 61 ff.). Gnosticism here, as frequently elsewhere, is related
to common Christianity, as excess progressing to the invention of a myth with a tendency, to a historical theorem
determined by the effort to maintain one’s own position, (cf. the article from the kerygma of Peter in Clem.
Strom. VI. 6, 48: Ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δωδεκα μαθηπὰς, κ.τ.λ., the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6
books of the Apostolic Constitutions, and the introduction to the Egyptian ritual, κατὰ κέλευσίν τοῦ κυρίου
ὑμῶν, κ.ὼ.λ.). Besides, it must be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its connection with the
twelve, is obscure: what is historically reliable here has still to be investigated; even the work of Seufert (Der
Urspr. u. d. Bedeutung des Apostolats in der christl. Kirche der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared
up the dark points. We will, perhaps, get more light by following the important hint given by Weizäcker (Apost.
Age, p. 13 ff.) that Peter was the first witness of the resurrection, and was called such in the kerygma of the
communities (see 1 Cor. XV. 5: Luke XXIV. 34). The twelve Apostles are also further called οἱ περὶ τὸν Πετρὸν
(Mrc. fin. in L. Ign. ad Smyrn. 3; cf. Luke VIII. 45; Acts. II. 14; Gal. I. 18 f; 1 Cor. XV. 5), and it is a correct his-
torical reminiscence when Chrysostom says (Hom. in Joh. 88), ὁ Πέτρος ἔκκριτος ἡν τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ πτόμα
τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ κορυφή τοῦ σόρου. Now, as Peter was really in personal relation with important Gentile-
Christian communities, that which held good of him, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was
perhaps transferred to these. One has finally to remember that besides the appeal to the twelve there was in the
Gentile Churches an appeal to Peter and Paul (but not for the evangelic kerygma), which has a certain historical
justification; cf. Gal. II. 8; 1 Cor. I. 12 f., IX. 5; I Clem. Ign. ad Rom. 4, and the numerous later passages. Paul in
claiming equality with Peter, though Peter was the head and mouth of the twelve and had himself been active
in mission work, has perhaps contributed most towards spreading the authority of the twelve. It is notable how
rarely we find any special appeal to John in the tradition of the main body of the Church. For the middle of the
2nd century, the authority of the twelve Apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1) They were
135
§©3. The Main Articles of Christianity and the Conceptions of Salvation. Eschatology.
1. The main articles of Christianity were (1) belief in God the δεσπότης, and in the Son 163
in virtue of proofs from prophecy, and the teaching of the Lord as attested by the Apostles;
(2) discipline according to the standard of the words of the Lord; (3) baptism; (4) the common
offering of prayer, culminating in the Lord’s Supper and the holy meal; (5) the sure hope of
the nearness of Christ’s glorious kingdom. In these appears the unity of Christendom, that
is, of the Church which possesses the Holy Spirit.55 On the basis of this unity Christian 164
knowledge was free and manifold. It was distinguished as σοφία, σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, γνῶσις
(τῶν δικαιωμάτων), from the λόγος θεοῦ τῆς πίστεως, and the κλῆσις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, and
165
the ἐντολαὶ τῆς διδαχῆς (Barn. 16, 9, similarly Hermas). Perception and knowledge of Divine
things was a Charism, possessed only by individuals; but, like all Charisms, it was to be used
166
for the good of the whole. In so far as every actual perception was a perception produced
by the Spirit, it was regarded as important and indubitable truth, even though some Chris-
tians were unable to understand it. While attention was given to the firm inculcation and
observance of the moral precepts of Christ, as well as to the awakening of sure faith in Christ,
and while all waverings and differences were excluded in respect of these, there was absolutely
no current doctrine of faith in the communities, in the sense of a completed theory; and the
theological speculations of even closely related Christian writers of this epoch, exhibit, the
greatest differences.56 The productions of fancy, the terrible or consoling pictures of the
future pass for sacred knowledge, just as much as intelligent and sober reflections, and edi-
fying interpretation of Old Testament sayings. Even that which was afterwards separated
as Dogmatic and Ethics was then in no way distinguished.57 The communities gave expres-
sion in the cultus, chiefly in the hymns and prayers, to what they possessed in their God
and their Christ; here sacred formulæ were fashioned and delivered to the members.58 The
missionaries for the world; (2) They ruled the Church and established Church Offices; (3) They guaranteed the
true doctrine, (a) by the tradition going back to them, (b) by writings; (4) They are the ideals of Christian life;
(5) They are also directly mediators of salvation—though this point is uncertain.
55 See Διδαχὴ, c. 1-10, with parallel passages.
56 Cf., for example, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians with the Shepherd of Hermas. Both documents
originated in Rome.
57 Compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably united in the Shepherd, in first and second
Clement, as well as in Polycarp and Justin.
58 Note the hymnal parts of the Revelation of John, the great prayer with which the first epistle of Clement
closes, the “carmen dicere Christo quasi deo” reported by Pliny, the eucharist prayer in the Διδαχὴ, the hymn
1 Tim. III. 16, the fragments from the prayers which Justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of
the anonymous writer in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 5, that the belief of the earliest Christians in the Deity of Christ
might be proved from the old Christian hymns and odes. In the epistles of Ignatius the theology frequently
consists of an aimless stringing together of articles manifestly originating in hymns and the cultus.
136
problem of surrendering the world in the hope of a life beyond was regarded as the practical
side of the faith, and the unity in temper and disposition resting on faith in the saving rev-
elation of God in Christ, permitted the highest degree of freedom in knowledge, the results
of which were absolutely without control as soon as the preacher or the writer was recognised
as a true teacher, that is inspired by the Spirit of God.59 There was also in wide circles a
167
conviction that the Christian faith, after the night of error, included the full knowledge of
everything worth knowing, that precisely in its most important articles it is accessible to
men of every degree of culture, and that in it, in the now attained truth, is contained one of
the most essential blessings of Christianity. When it is said in the Epistle of Barnabas (II. 2.
3); τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν εἰσὶν βοηθοὶ φόβος καὶ ὑπομονή, τὰ δὲ συμμαχοῦντα ἡμῖν μακροθυμία
καὶ ἐγκράτεια· τούτων μενόντων τὰ πρὸς κόριον ἁγνῶς, συνευφραίνονταί αὐτοῖς σοφία,
σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, γνῶσις, knowledge appears in this classic formula to be an essential
element in Christianity, conditioned by faith and the practical virtues, and dependent on
them. Faith takes the lead, knowledge follows it: but of course in concrete cases it could not
always be decided what was λόγος τῆς πίστεως, which implicitly contained the highest
knowledge, and what the special γνώσις; for in the last resort the nature of the two was re-
garded as identical, both being represented as produced by the Spirit of God.
2. The conceptions of Christian salvation, or of redemption, were grouped around two
ideas, which were themselves but loosely connected with each other, and of which the one
influenced more the temper and the imagination, the other the intellectual faculty. On the
one hand, salvation, in accordance with the earliest preaching, was regarded as the glorious
kingdom which was soon to appear on earth with the visible return of Christ, which will
bring the present course of the world to an end, and introduce for a definite series of centur-
ies, before the final judgment, a new order of all things to the joy and blessedness of the
saints.60 In connection with this the hope of the resurrection of the body occupied the
168
169
59 The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of God suggest to them. Their word is therefore God’s
word, and their writings, in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are inspired, holy writings. Further,
not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit the formula; ἔδοξεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν (see similar passages in
the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the Holy Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc.
Even in the controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop gave his vote with the formula “secundum motum
animi mei et spiritus sancti” (Cypr. Opp. ed. Hartel. I. p. 457).
60 The so-called Chiliasm—the designation is unsuitable and misleading—is found wherever the Gospel is
not yet Hellenised (see, for example, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39]; Διδαχη , 10. 16; Apoc.
Petri; Justin, Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139; Cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian
preaching (see my article “Millenium” in the Encycl. Brit.). In it lay not the least of the power of Christianity in
137
the first century, and the means whereby it entered the Jewish propaganda in the Empire and surpassed it. The
hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but little modified, that is, only so far as the substitution of the
Christian communities for the nation of Israel made modification necessary. In all else, even the details of the
Jewish hopes of the future were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra, Enoch, Baruch,
Moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel. Their contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus,
and they served as models for similar productions (here, therefore, an enduring connection with the Jewish re-
ligion is very plain). In the Christian hopes of the future, as in the Jewish eschatology, may be distinguished es-
sential and accidental, fixed and fluid elements To the former belong (1) the notion of a final fearful conflict
with the powers of the world which is just about to break out το τε λειον σκα νδαλον η γγικεν, (2) belief in
the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after conquering the secular power (this was variously con-
ceived, as God’s Ministers, as “that which restrains”—2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of Satan; see the various
estimates in Justin, Melito, Irenæus and Hyppolytus), Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth, and
will raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will finally judge all men. To the fluid elements
belong the notions of the Antichrist, or of the secular power culminating in the Antichrist, as well as notions
about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christ’s glorious kingdom. But it is worthy of special note, that
Justin regarded the belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it will endure for 1000 years,
as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though he confesses he knew Christians who did not share this belief, while
they did not, like the pseudo-Christians, reject also the resurrection of the body (the promise of Montanus that
Christ’s kingdom would be let down at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself, and answers to the other promises
and pretensions of Montanus). The resurrection of the body is expressed in the Roman Symbol, while, very
notably, the hope of Christ’s earthly kingdom is not there mentioned, (see above, p. 157). The great inheritance
which the Gentile Christian communities received from Judaism, is the eschatological hopes, along with the
Monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence. The law as a national law was abolished. The Old
Testament became a new book in the hands of the Gentile Christians. On the contrary, the eschatological hopes
in all their details, and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the state and public life, were at first re-
ceived, and maintained themselves in wide circles pretty much unchanged, and only succumbed in some of
their details just as in Judaism—to the changes which resulted from the constant change of the political situation.
But these hopes were also destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of Christianity on Græco-
Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that they did not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know
whether this was of importance for the period that followed. But that Christ would set up the kingdom in Jeru-
salem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom with sensuous enjoyments—these and other notions contend,
on the one hand, with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other, with the moralistic spir-
itualism, in the pure carrying out of which the Gentile Christians, in the East at least, increasingly recognised
the essence of Christianity. Only the vigorous world-renouncing enthusiasm which did not permit the rise of
moralistic spiritualism and mysticism, and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it, pro-
tected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the spiritual disposition of the great multitude of
converts, only at times of special oppression. Moreover, the Christians, in opposition to Judaism, were, as a rule,
instructed to obey magistrates, whose establishment directly contradicted the judgment of the state contained
in the Apocalypses. In such a conflict, however, that judgment necessarily conquers at last, which makes as little
138
foreground.61 On the other hand, salvation appeared to be given in the truth, that is, in the
complete and certain knowledge of God, as contrasted with the error of heathendom and
the night of sin, and this truth included the certainty of the gift of eternal life, and all con-
170
change as possible in the existing forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and subsidence of eschato-
logical hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be written in fragments. They have rarely—at best, by fits and
starts—marked out the course. On the contrary, if I may say so, they only gave the smoke: for the course was
pointed out by the abiding elements of the Gospel, trust in God and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a holy
life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet, gradual change in which the eschatological hopes passed away,
fell into the background, or lost important parts, was, on the other hand, a result of deep-reaching changes in
the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was broken up by speculative mysticism, and on that
account very much later in the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre in christology. In
the earliest period, this, as a theory, belonged more to the defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius
alone was able to reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had experienced. The disguises
in which the apocalyptic eschatological prophecies were set forth, belonged in part to the form of this literature,
(in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became too plain, or in so far as the prophet really saw the future
only in large outline), partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political offence. See Hippol., comm. in
Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51: νοεῖν ο φει λομεν τα κατα καιρο ν συμβαι νοντα και ει δοτας σιωπᾶν); by
above all, Constantine, orat. ad. s. cœtum 19, on some verses of Virgil which are interpreted in a Christian sense,”
but that none of the rulers in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the laws of the state
with his poetry, or of destroying the traditional ideas of the procedure about the gods, he concealed the truth
under a veil.” That holds good also of the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian Sibylline sayings.
61 The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3: ἀναστήσεις τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην. Herm. Sim.
V. 7. 2: βλέπε μήποτε ἀναβῇ ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σου τὴν σάρκα σου ταύτην φθαρτὴν εἶναι. Barn. 5. 6 f.: 21. 1: 2
Clem. 1: καὶ μή λεγέτω τις ὑμῶν ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ οὐ κρίνεται οὐδὲ ἀνίσταται. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2: Justin, Dial. 80
etc.,) finds its place originally in the hope of a share in the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears
or is modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But it finally asserted itself throughout and
became of independent importance, in a new structure of eschatological expectations, in which it attained the
significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith. With the hope of the resurrection of the body
was originally connected the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness, under green trees in magnificent fields
with joyous feeding flocks, and flying angels clothed in white. One must read the Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd,
or the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, in order to see how entirely the fancy of many Christians, and not merely
of those who were uncultured, dwelt in a fairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of Days, and
now of the Youthful Shepherd, Christ. The most fearful delineations of the torments of Hell formed the reverse
side to this. We now know, through the Apocalypse of Peter, how old these delineations are.
139
ceivable spiritual blessings.62 Of these the community, so far as it is a community of saints,

that is, so far as it is ruled by the Spirit of God, already possesses forgiveness of sins and
righteousness. But, as a rule, neither blessing was understood in a strictly religious sense,
that is to say, the effect of their religious sense was narrowed. The moralistic view, in which
eternal life is the wages and reward of a perfect moral life wrought out essentially by one’s
own power, took the place of first importance at a very early period. On this view, according
171
to which the righteousness of God is revealed in punishment and reward alike, the forgiveness
of sin only meant a single remission of sin in connection with entrance into the Church by
baptism,63 and righteousness became identical with virtue. The idea is indeed still operative,
62 The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1),
because the Father of truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12: οὐδὲ γάρ ξωὴ ἄνευ γνώσεως οὐδὲ γνῶσις
ἀσφαλὴς ἄνευ ζωῆς ἀληθοῦς· διὸ πλησιον ἐκάτερον πεφύτευται, see also what follows). The classification is a
Hellenic one, which has certainly penetrated also into Palestinian Jewish theology. It may be reckoned among
the great intuitions, which in the fulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all nations.
The Pauline formula, “Where there is forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation”, had for centuries no
distinct history. But the formula, “Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is eternal life”, has had
the richest history in Christendom from the beginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of
the Apologists (see, for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10, where there is no mention of the for-
giveness of sin, but thanks are given, ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας ἧς ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς
διὰ Ἰησοῦ, or ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, and 1 Clem. 36. 2: διὰ τούτο ἡθέλησεν ὁ δεσπότης τῆς ἀθανάτου
γνώσεως ἡμᾶς γεύσασθαι). It is capable of a very manifold content, and has never made its way in the Church
without reservations, but so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of Christianity. This is shewn most clearly
in the fact that the ἀθανασία, identical with ἀφθαρσία and ζωὴ αἰώνιος, as is proved by their being often inter-
changed, gradually supplanted the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (χριστοῦ) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious intuition
and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be noted at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life
which is bestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body is by no means with certainty
included. It is rather added to it (see above) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words ζωὴν αἰώνιον
were first added to the words σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν in the western Symbols at a comparatively late period, while
in the prayers they are certainly very old.
63 Even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary
remission of sin was not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new religion, and was estab-
lished by an appeal to the omnipotence and special goodness of God, which appears just in the calling of sinners.
In this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5. 9; 2 Clem. 2. 4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled,
inasmuch as the sins committed before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a state of ignorance
(Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristinæ cæcitatis), ou account of which it seemed worthy of God to forgive them,
that is, to accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge. So considered, everything,
in point of fact, amounts to the gracious gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, “Jesus receiveth sinners”,
is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and many like it, and above all, the religious instinct,
140
especially in the oldest Gentile-Christian writings known to us, that sinlessness rests upon
a new creation (regeneration) which is effected in baptism;64 but, so far as dissimilar
eschatological hopes do not operate, it is everywhere in danger of being supplanted by the
other idea, which maintains that there is no other blessing in the Gospel than the perfect
truth and eternal life. All else is but a sum of obligations in which the Gospel is presented
as a new law. The christianising of the Old Testament supported this conception. There was
172
indeed an opinion that the Gospel, even so far as it is a law, comprehends a gift of salvation
which is to be grasped by faith (νόμος ἄνευ ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης,65 νόμος τ. ἐλευθερίας,66 Christ
himself the law);67 but this notion, as it is obscure in itself, was also an uncertain one and
was gradually lost. Further, by the “law” was frequently meant in the first place, not the law
of love, but the commandments of ascetic holiness, or an explanation and a turn were given
to the law of love, according to which it is to verify itself above all in asceticism.68
The expression of the contents of the Gospel in the concepts ἐπαγγελία (ζωὴ αἰῴνιος)
γνῶσις (ἀληθεία) νόμος (ἐγκρὰτέια), seemed quite as plain as it was exhaustive, and the
importance of faith which was regarded as the basis of hope and knowledge and obedience
in a holy life, was at the same time in every respect perceived.69
where it was more powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that moralistic conception.
See for this, Hermas. Sim. V. 7. 3: περὶ τῶν προτέρων ἀγνοημάτων τῷ θεῷ μονῷ δυνατὸν ἴασιν δοῦναι· αὐτοῦ
γὰρ ἐστι πᾶσα ἐξουσία. Præd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: ὅσα ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ τις ὑμῶν ἐποίησεν μὴ εἐδὼς σαφῶς
τὸν θεὸν, ἐαν
̀ ἐπιγνοὺς μετανοήσῃ, τάντα αὐτῷ ἀφεθήσεται τὰ ἀμαρτήματα. Aristides, Apol. 17: “The Christians
offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they may be converted from their error. But when one of them
is converted he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has done. And he confesses to God,
saying: ‘I have done these things in ignorance.’ And he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because
he had done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered at the true knowledge of the
Christians.” Exactly the same in Tertull. de pudic. 10. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin), “Cessatio
delicti radix est veniæ, ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus”, is a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest
Gentile Christians.
64 This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle of Barnabas (see 6. II. 14); the new formation
(ἀναπλασσειν) results through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the forgiveness of sin is the result
of the renewal that is spontaneously brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent feeling.
65 Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage.
66 James I. 25.
67 Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.
68 Didache, c I., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p. 45 f.).
69 The concepts ἐπαγγελία, γνῶσις, νόμος, form the Triad on which the later catholic conception of Chris-
tianity is based, though it can he proved to have been in existence at an earlier period. That πίστις must everywhere
take the lead was undoubted, though we must not think of the Pauline idea of πίστις. When the Apostolic
Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of
141
Supplement 1.—The moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and righteousness, in

Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp and Ignatius, gives place to Pauline formulæ; but the uncertainty
with which these are reproduced, shews that the Pauline idea has not been clearly seen.70
In Hermas, however, and in the second Epistle of Clement, the consciousness of being under
grace, even after baptism, almost completely disappears behind the demand to fulfil the
tasks which baptiser imposes.71 The idea that serious sins, in the case of the baptised, no
173
longer should or can be forgiven, except under special circumstances, appears to have pre-
vailed in wide circles, if not everywhere.72 It reveals the earnestness of those early Christians
and their elevated sense of freedom and power; but it might be united either with the highest
moral intensity, or with a lax judgment on the little sins of the day. The latter, in point of
fact, threatened to become more and more the presupposition and result of that idea—for
there exists here a fatal reciprocal action.
Supplement 2.—The realisation of salvation—as βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ and as
ἀφθαρσία—being expected from the future, the whole present possession of salvation might
be comprehended under the title of vocation (κλῆσις): see, for example, the second Epistle
of Clement. In this sense gnosis itself was regarded as something only preparatory.
Supplement 3.—In some circles the Pauline formula about righteousness and salvation
by faith alone, must, it would appear, not infrequently (as already in the Apostolic age itself)
have been partly misconstrued, and partly taken advantage of as a cloak for laxity. Those
who resisted such a disposition, and therefore also the formula in the post-Apostolic age,
shew indeed by their opposition how little they have hit upon or understood the Pauline
idea of faith: for they not only issued the watchword “faith and works” (though the Jewish
holy traditions, and obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents will yet be fully revealed.
But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who knows what he possesses in faith in Christ, that is, in confidence in
him. In Barn. I.: Polyc. Ep. 2, we find “faith, hope love”; in Ignatius, “faith and love”. Tertullian, in an excellent
exposition, has shewn how far patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides the Epistle of
James).
70 See Lipsius De Clementis. R. ep ad. Cor. priore disquis. 1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible
to conclude from the fact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formulæ are relatively most faithfully produced, that Gentile
Christianity generally understood Pauline theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course
of two generations.
71 Formally: τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον (2 Clem. 8. 6.)
72 Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of course sought and found a way of meeting the
results of that idea which were threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the idea itself.
Because Christendom is a community of saints which has in its midst the sure salvation, all its members—this
is the necessary inference—must lead a sinless life.
142
ceremonial law was not thereby meant), but they admitted, and not only hypothetically,
that one might have the true faith even though in his case that faith remained dead or united
with immorality. See, above all, the Epistle of James and the Shepherd of Hermas; though
174
the first Epistle of John comes also into consideration (III. 7: “He that doeth righteousness
is righteous”).73
Supplement 4.—However similar the eschatological expectations of the Jewish Apoca-
lyptists and the Christians may seem, there is yet in one respect an important difference
between them. The uncertainty about the final consummation was first set aside by the
Gospel. It should be noted as highly characteristic of the Jewish hopes of the future, even
of the most definite, how the beginning of the end, that is, the overthrow of the world-powers
and the setting up of the earthly kingdom of God, was much more certainly expressed than
the goal and the final end. Neither the general judgment, nor what we, according to Chris-
tian tradition, call heaven and hell, should be described as a sure possession of Jewish faith
in the primitive Christian period. It is only in the Gospel of Christ, where everything is
subordinated to the idea of a higher righteousness and the union of the individual with God,
that the general judgment and the final condition after it are the clear, firmly grasped goal
of all meditation. No doctrine has been more surely preserved in the convictions and
preaching of believers in Christ than this. Fancy might roam ever so much and, under the
direction of the tradition, thrust bright and precious images between the present condition
and the final end, the main thing continued to be the great judgment of the world, and the
certainty that the saints would go to God in heaven, the wicked to hell. But while the judg-
ment, as a rule, was connected with the Person of Jesus himself (see the Romish Symbol:
the words κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, were very frequently applied to Christ in the earliest
writings), the moral condition of the individual, and the believing recognition of the Person
of Christ were put in the closest relation. The Gentile Christians held firmly to this. Open
the Shepherd, or the second Epistle of Clement, or any other early Christian writing, and
you will find that the judgment, heaven and hell, are the decisive objects. But that shews
175
that the moral character of Christianity as a religion is seen and adhered to. The fearful idea
of hell, far from signifying a backward step in the history of the religious spirit, is rather a
proof of its having rejected the morally indifferent point of view, and of its having become
sovereign in union with the ethical spirit.
§©4. The Old Testament as Source of the Knowledge of Faith.74
73 The formula, “righteousness by faith alone,” was really repressed in the second century; but it could not
he entirely destroyed: see my Essay, “Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten K.” Ztsch. f. Theol,
u. Kirche. I. pp. 82-105.
74 The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old Testament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority,
that we possess, is Wrede’s “Untersuchungen zum 1 Clementsbrief” (1891). Excellent preliminary investigations,
which, however, are not everywhere quite reliable, may be found in Hatch’s Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch
143
The sayings of the Old Testament, the word of God, were believed to furnish inexhaust-
ible material for deeper knowledge. The Christian prophets were nurtured on the Old
Testament, the teachers gathered from it the revelation of the past, present and future (Barn.
1. 7), and were therefore able as prophets to edify the Churches; from it was further drawn
the confirmation of the answers to all emergent questions, as one could always find in the
Old Testament what he was in search of. The different writers laid the holy book under
contribution in very much the same way; for they were all dominated by the presupposition
that this book is a Christian book, and contains the explanations that are necessary for the
occasion. There were several teachers,—e.g., Barnabas,—who at a very early period boasted
of finding in it ideas of special profundity and value—these were always an expression of
the difficulties that were being felt. The plain words of the Lord as generally known, did not
seem sufficient to satisfy the craving for knowledge, or to solve the problems that were
emerging;75 their origin and form also opposed difficulties at first to the attempt to obtain
from them new disclosures by re-interpretation. But the Old Testament sayings and histories
176
were in part unintelligible, or in their literal sense offensive; they were at the same time re-
garded as fundamental words of God. This furnished the conditions for turning them to
account in the way we have stated. The following are the most important points of view
under which the Old Testament was used. (1) The Monotheistic cosmology and view of
nature were borrowed from it (see, for example, 1 Clem.). (2) It was used to prove that the
appearance and entire history of Jesus had been foretold centuries, nay, thousands of years
beforehand, and that the founding of a new people gathered out of all nations had been
predicted and prepared for from the very beginning.76 (3) It was used as a means of verifying
all principles and institutions of the Christian Church,—the spiritual worship of God without
images, the abolition of all ceremonial legal precepts, baptism, etc. (4) The Old Testament
177
has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were very probably in the first and second cen-
turies systematised extracts from the Old Testament (see pp. 203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite establised
(see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be rejected. The Jewish catechetical and missionary instruc-
tion in the Diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved by the Christian Apologies
and the Sybilline books.
75 It is an extremely important fact that the words of the Lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense
(that is chiefly for the statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost without exception. up
to and inclusive of Justin. It was different with the theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers
from Irenæus.
76 Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already been done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c.
13) and others. On the proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp. 56-74. The passage in the
Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128) is very complete: Ἡμεῖς ἀναπτίξαντες τὰς βίβλους ἃς εἴχομεν τῶν
προφητῶν, ἃ μὲν διὰ παραβολῶν ἃ δὲ διὰ αἰνιγμάτων ἡ δὲ αὐθεντικῶ; καὶ αὐτολεξεί τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν
144
was used for purposes of exhortation according to the formula a minori ad majus ; if God
then punished and rewarded this or that in such a way, how much more may we expect,
who now stand in the last days, and have received the κλῆσις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. (5) It was
proved from the Old Testament that the Jewish nation is in error, and either never had a
covenant with God or has lost it, that it has a false apprehension of God’s revelations, and
therefore has, now at least, no longer any claim to their possession. But beyond all this, (6)
there were in the Old Testament books, above all, in the Prophets and in the Psalms, a great
number of sayings—confessions of trust in God and of help received from God, of humility
and holy courage, testimonies of a world-overcoming faith and words of comfort, love and
communion—which were too exalted for any cavilling, and intelligible to every spiritually
awakened mind. Out of this treasure which was handed down to the Greeks and Romans,
the Church edified herself, and in the perception of its riches was largely rooted the conviction
that the holy book must in every line contain the highest truth.
The point mentioned under (5) needs, however, further explanation. The self-conscious-
ness of the Christian community of being the people of God, must have been, above all,
expressed in its position towards Judaism, whose mere existence—even apart from actual
assaults—threatened that consciousness most seriously. A certain antipathy of the Greeks
and Romans towards Judaism co-operated here with a law of self-preservation. On all hands,
therefore, Judaism as it then existed was abandoned as a sect judged and rejected by God,
ὀνομαζόντων, εὓρμεν καὶ τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θανατον καὶ τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὰς λοιπάς κολάσεις
πάσας, ὃσας ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν καὶ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν πρὸ τοῦ Ἱερσόλυμα
κριθῆναι, καθὼς ἐγέγραπτο ταῦτα πάντα ἃ ἔδει αὐτὸν παθεῖν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἃ ἔσται· ταῠτα οὖν ἐπιγνόντες
ἐπιστεύσαμεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τῶν γεγραμμένων εἰς αὐτὸν. With the help of the Old Testament the teachers dated
back the Christian religion to the beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the founding of
the Christian community with the creation of the world. The Apologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas
and Hermas, and before these, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others had already done the
same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured classes one of the most impressive articles in the missionary
preaching. The Christian religion in this way got a hold which the others—with the exception of the Jew-
ish—lacked. But for that very reason, we must guard against turning it into a formula, that the Gentile Christians
had comprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of prediction and fulfilment. The Old
Testament is certainly the book of predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of God which
needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. The historical fulfilment only proves to the world the
truth of those revelations. Even the scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such circumstances
the question necessarily arises, as to what independent meaning and significance Christ’s appearance could
have, apart from that confirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics, a surprisingly long time
passed before this question was raised, that is to say, it was not raised till the time of Irenæus.
145
as a society of hypocrites,77 as a synagogue of Satan,78 as a people seduced by an evil angel,79

and the Jews were declared to have no further right to the possession of the Old Testament.
Opinions differed, however, as to the earlier history of the nation and its relation to the true
178
God. While some denied that there ever had been a covenant of salvation between God and
this nation, and in this respect recognised only an intention of God,80 which was never
carried out because of the idolatry of the people, others admitted in a hazy way that a relation
did exist; but even they referred all the promises of the Old Testament to the Christian
people.81 While the former saw in the observance of the letter of the law, in the case of cir-
cumcision, sabbath, precepts as to food, etc., a proof of the special devilish temptation to
which the Jewish people succumbed,82 the latter saw in circumcision a sign83 given by God,
and in virtue of certain considerations acknowledged that the literal observance of the law
was for the time God’s intention and command, though righteousness never came from
179
such observance. Yet even they saw in the spiritual the alone true sense, which the Jews had
denied, and were of opinion that the burden of ceremonies was a pædagogic necessity with
77 See Διδαχὴ, 8.
78 See the Revelation of John II. 9: III. 9; but see also the “Jews” in the Gospels of John and Peter. The latter
exonerates Pilate almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for the crucifixion.
79 See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews are called: “οἱ δοκοῦντες ἔχειν θεὸν,” cf. Præd.
Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41: μηδὲ κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μόνοι οἰομ
́ ενοι τὸν θεὸν γιγνώσκειν
οὐκ ἐπίστανται, λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ σελήνη, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ σελήνη φανῇ, σάββατον
οὐκ ἀγουσι τὸ λεκόμενον πρῶτον, οὐδὲ γεομηνίαν ἄγουσιν, οὐδὲ ἄζυμα, οὐδὲ ἑορτήν, οὐδὲ μεγάλην ἡμέραν.
(Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even Justin does not judge the Jews more favourably than the Gentiles, but less favourably;
see Apol. I. 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 53, 60. On the other hand, Aristides (Apol. c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is
much more friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words of Pionius against and about
the Jews in the “Acta Pionii,” c. 4, are very instructive.
80 Barn. 4. 6. f.: 14. 1. f. The author of Præd. Petri must have had a similar view of the matter.
81 Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho.
82 Barn. 9. f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas’ position towards the Old Testament to suppose
it possible to pass over his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside as indifferent or
unmethodical. There is nothing here unmethodical, and therefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas’ strictly spiritual
idea of God, and the conviction that all (Jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel his explanations. These are
so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas that, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the Old Testament
altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having circumcised his slaves would have forced Barnabas
to annul the whole authority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a particular interpretation.
He does this by combining other passages of Genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer circum-
cision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ.
83 Barn 9. 6: ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖς· καὶ μὴν περιτέτμηται ὁ λαὸς εἰς σφραγῖδα.
146
reference to a people stiff-necked and prone to idolatry, i.e., a defence of monotheism, and
gave an interpretation to the sign of circumcision which made it no longer a blessing, but
rather the mark for the execution of judgment on Israel.84
Israel was thus at all times the pseudo-Church. The older people does not in reality
precede the younger people, the Christians, even in point of time; for though the Church
appeared only in the last days, it was foreseen and created by God from the beginning. The
younger people is therefore really the older, and the new law rather the original law.85 The
Patriarchs, Prophets, and men of God, however, who were favoured with the communication
of God’s words, have nothing inwardly in common with the Jewish people. They are God’s
elect who were distinguished by a holy walk, and must be regarded as the forerunners and
fathers of the Christian people.86 To the question how such holy men appeared exclusively,
or almost exclusively, among the Jewish people, the documents preserved to us yield no
answer.
§©5. The Knowledge of God and of the World. Estimate of the World.
The knowledge of faith was, above all, the knowledge of God as one, supramundane, 180
spiritual,87 and almighty (παντοκράτωρ); God is creator and governor of the world and
therefore the Lord.88 But as he created the world a beautiful ordered whole (monotheistic
84 See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, “Christenthum
Justin’s,” p. 429. ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial law was a pædagogic
measure of God with reference to a stiff-necked people prone to idolatry. (2) That it—like circumcision—was
to make the people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the Divine appointment. (3) That
in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews is exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. But
Justin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and therefore definitely distinguished it from the
ceremonial law.
85 See Ztschr. für K. G, I., p. 330 f.
86 This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the post-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and
therefore all Israel’s predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve tribes, and therefore Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the Christians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot every-
where be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old Testament men of God were in certain measure Christians.
See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: οἱ προφῆται κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν έζησαν.
87 God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these
alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the
cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured,
popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of
the Apocalyptic images.
88 See Joh. IV. 22; ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν. I Clem. 59. 3. 4; Herm. Mand. I.; Præd. Petri in Clem.
Strom. VI. 5. 9.: γινωσκετε ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἐστιν ὅς ἀρχὴν πάντων ἐποίησεν, καὶ τέλους ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. Aristides
Apol. 15 (Syr.): “The Christians know and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth.” Chap. 16:
147
view of nature)89 for the sake of man,90 he is at the same time the God of goodness and re-
demption (θεὸς σωτήρ), and the true faith in God and knowledge of him as the Father,91
is made perfect only in the knowledge of the identity of the God of creation and the God of
181
redemption. Redemption, however, was necessary, because at the beginning humanity and
“Christians as men who know God, pray to him for things which it becomes him to give and them to receive.”
(Similarly Justin.) From very many old Gentile Christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy. “We know God the
Almighty; the night of blindness is past” (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1). God is δεσπότης, a designation which is very
frequently used (it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find κύριος. As the Lord and
Creator, God is also called the Father (of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2: ὁ πατὴρ καὶ κτίστης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου.
35. 3: δημιουργὸς καὶ πατῆρ τῶν αἰώνων. This use of the name Father for the supreme God was, as is well
known, familiar to the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name. The creation out of
nothing was made decidedly prominent by Hermas, see Vis. I. 1. 6, and my notes on the passage. In the Christian
Apocrypha, in spite of the vividness of the idea of God, the angels play the same rôle as in the Jewish, and as in
the current Jewish speculations. According to Hermas, e.g., all God’s actions are mediated by special angels,
nay, the Son of God himself is represented by a special angel, viz., Michael, and works by him. But outside the
Apocalypses there seems to have been little interest in the good angels.
89 See, for example, 1 Clem. 20.
90 This is frequent in the Apologists; see also Diogn. 10. 2: but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. I (see also Cels. ap. Orig.
IV. 23) says: διὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη (cf. I. 1. 6. and my notes on the passage). Aristides (Apol.
16) declares it as his conviction that “the beautiful things,” that is, the world, are maintained only for the sake
of Christians; see, besides, the words (I. c.); “I have no doubt, that the earth continues to exist (only) on account
of the prayers of the Christians.” Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered between the formulæ, that the world
was created for the sake of man, and for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The
statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3, ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος σου, is singular.
91 God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very frequent), (2) as Father of the world (see above),
(3) as the merciful one who has proved his goodness, declared his will, and called Christians to be his sons (1
Clem. 23. 1; 29, 1; 2 Clem. 1. 4; 8. 4; 10. 1; 14. 1; see the index to Zahn’s edition of the Ignatian Epistles; Didache.
1. 5; 9. 2. 3; 10. 2.) The latter usage is not very common; it is entirely wanting, for example, in the Epistle of
Barnabas. Moreover, God is also called πετὴρ τῆς ἀληθείας, as the source of all truth (2 Clem. 3. 1: 20, 5: θεὸς
τ. ἀληθείας). The identity of the Almighty God of creation with the merciful God of redemption is the tacit
presupposition of all declarations about God, in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured. It is also fre-
quently expressed (see, above all, the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. I. 3. 4), so far as the
declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the
Holy Church. As to the designation of God in the Roman Symbol, as the “Father Almighty,” that threefold ex-
position just given may perhaps allow it.
148
the world alike fell under the dominion of evil demons,92 of the evil one. There was no
universally accepted theory as to the origin of this dominion; but the sure and universal
conviction was that the present condition and course of the world is not of God, but is of
182
92 The present dominion of evil demons, or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man’s
need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world’s course
(the πολιτεία ἐν τῷ κοσμῳ: the Latins afterwards used the word Sæculum) is determined by the devil, and that
the dark one (Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression.
But where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are
to be delivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the last instance, were traced back by the
writers to the action of demons. But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by fancy
which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression
of universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have produced them. Here again we
must note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest
period; the traditional religious series, resting on a fanciful view of history—it is essentially identical with the
Jewish Apocalyptic: see, for example, Barn. 4—and the empiric moralistic (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially
valuable discussion, or Præd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen
into ignorance, weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6: ὁ βίος ἡμῷν ὅλος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἦν εἰ μὴ θάνατος). But, perhaps,
in no other point, with the exception of the ἀνάστασις σαρκὸς, has the religious conception remained so tenacious
as in this, and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be
explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities
on every side. Even where the national gods were looked upon as dead idols—and that was perhaps the rule, see
Præd. Petri, I. c.; 2 Clem. 3. 1; Didache, 6—one could not help assuming that there were mighty demons operative
behind them, as otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But, on the other hand, even
a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons
who sought to rule the world and man. For by means of this assumption, which was wide-spread even among
the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore
be justified in its widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was altogether due to ignorance
and mortality, there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption
was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. But this step, which
would have led either to dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and
moral, was not taken within the main body of the Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that
death, evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment, when the demons took possession of
the world, drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at particular points, but was in the end respected. We
have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian (Jewish) eschatology called forth and
maintained a disposition in which the Kingdom of God and that of the world (Kingdom of the devil) were felt
to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption
through Christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something
149
the devil. Those, however, who believed in God, the almighty creator, and were expecting
the transformation of the earth, as well as the visible dominion of Christ upon it, could not
be seduced into accepting a dualism in principle (God and devil: spirit and matter). Belief
in God, the creator, and eschatological hopes preserved the communities from the theoretic
dualism that so readily suggested itself, which they slightly touched in many particular
183
opinions, and which threatened to dominate their feelings. The belief that the world is of
God and therefore good, remained in force. A distinction was made between the present
constitution of the world, which is destined for destruction, and the future order of the
world which will be a glorious “restitutio in integrum”, The theory of the world as an artic-
ulated whole which had already been proclaimed by the Stoics, and which was strengthened
by Christian monotheism, would not, even if it had been known to the uncultured, have
been vigorous enough to cope with the impression of the wickedness of the course of this
world, and the vulgarity of all things material. But the firm belief in the omnipotence of
God, and the hope of the world’s transformation grounded on the Old Testament, conquered
the mood of absolute despair of all things visible and sensuous, and did not allow a theoretic
conclusion, in the sense of dualism in principle, to be drawn from the practical obligation
to renounce the world, or from the deep distrust with regard to the flesh.
§©6. Faith in Jesus Christ.
1. As surely as redemption was traced back to God himself, so surely was Jesus (ὁ σωτὴρ
ἡμῶν) held to be the mediator of it. Faith in Jesus was therefore, even for Gentile Christians,
a compendium of Christianity. Jesus is mostly designated with the same name as God,93 ὁ
entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken
in believers and increased in unbelievers) by the first advent of Christ, and therefore the period between the first
and second advent of Christ belongs to οὗτος ὁ αἰών (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim. I; 2. Clem. 6. 3: ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος
ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί· οὗτος λέγει μοιχείαν καὶ φθορὰν καὶ φιλαργουρίαν καὶ ἀπάτην, ἐκεῖνος δὲ
τούτοις ἀποστάσσεται; Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the second coming of Christ must, as a matter
of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful impression that
nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ’s first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in
mockery to the suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. But the first
advent had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from
ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given and the gift of immortality could only of course
be dispensed after this life was ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ’s return was therefore a super-
fluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there was still a lively expectation of Christ’s earthly Kingdom.
93 No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of κύριος: see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian
de trinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics thus: “Et in primis illud retorquendum
in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere præsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt:
“Quoniam unus est dominus.” De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut ilium omnino non esse? Sed
150
κύριος (ἡμῶν), for we must remember the ancient use of this title. All that has taken place
or will take place with reference to salvation, is traced back to the “Lord.” The carelessness
of the early Christian writers about the bearing of the word in particular cases,94 shews that
in a religious relation, so far as there was reflection on the gift of salvation, Jesus could directly
184
take the place of God. The invisible God is the author, Jesus the revealer and mediator, of
all saving blessings. The final subject is presented in the nearest subject, and there is frequently
no occasion for expressly distinguishing them, as the range and contents of the revelation
of salvation in Jesus coincide with the range and contents of the will of salvation in God
himself. Yet prayers, as a rule, were addressed to God: at least, there are but few examples
of direct prayers to Jesus belonging to the first century (apart from the prayers in the Act.
Joh. of the so-called Leucius). The usual formula rather reads: θεῷ ἐξομολογούμεθα διὰ Ἰ.
Χρ.—θεῷ δόξα διά Ἰ. Χρ.95
2. As the Gentile Christians did not understand the significance of the idea that Jesus
is the Christ (Messiah), the designation “χριστός” had either to be given up in their com-
munities, or to subside into a mere name.96 But even where, through the Old Testament,
one was reminded of the meaning of the word, and allowed a value to it, he was far from
finding in the statement that Jesus is the Lord’s anointed, a clear expression of the dignity
185
dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini.” On κύριος
= δεσποτης, see above, p. 119, note.
94 Specially instructive examples of this are found in the Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement.
Clement (Ep. 1) speaks only of faith in God.
95 See 1 Clem. 59—61. Διδαχή, c. 9. 10. Yet Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, “Si homo
tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad præstandam
salutem inefficax judicetur.” As the Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and every-where invoked
by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal prayer another. The idea of the congruence of
God’s will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was further continued
in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen
Apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of tradition. But the Apostles never became
“οἱ κύριοι,” though the concepts διδαχὴ, (λόγος) κύριου, διδαχὴ (κήρυγμα) τῶν ἀποστόλων were just as inter-
changeable as λόγος θεοῦ and λόγος χριστοῦ. The full formula would be λὸγος θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τῶν
ἀποστόλων. But as the subjects introduced by ara are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the
abbreviation.
96 In the epistle of Barnabas “Jesus Christ” and “Christ” appear each once, but “Jesus” twelve times: in the
Didache “Jesus Christ” once, “Jesus” three times. Only in the second half of the second century, if I am not
mistaken, did the designation “Jesus Christ,” or “Christ,” become the current one, more and more crowding
out the simple “Jesus.” Yet the latter designation—and this is not surprising—appears to have continued longest
151
peculiar to him. That dignity had therefore to be expressed by other means. Nevertheless
the eschatological series of ideas connected the Gentile Christians very closely with the early
Christian ideas of faith, and therefore also with the earliest ideas about Jesus. In the confession
that God chose97 and prepared98 Jesus, that Jesus is the Angel99 and the servant of God,100
in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note that in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or
of Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says ὁ κύριος where the other Gospels use these names.
97 See 1 Clem. 64: ὁ θεὸς, ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον
δῷν. κ.τ.λ. (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately
thought of, for in point of fact the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community;
Barn. 3. 6: ὁ λαὸς ὅν ἡτοίμασεν ἡν τῷ ᾐγαπημόνῳ αὐτοῦ.) Herm. Sim. V. 2: ἐκλεξάμενος δοῦλόν τινα πιστὸ
καὶ εὐάρεστον. V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι ὅτι οὑτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐὰν φαίνηται ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ
ἀνθρώπον γεννηθεὶς καὶ ἐκλογῇ γενόμενος εἰς τὸ Χριστὸν εἰναι ἀποδεικνύηται.
98 See Barn. 14. 5: Ἰησοῦς εἰς τοῦτο ἡτοιμασθη, ἵνα . . . . ἡμᾶς λυτρωσάμενος ἐκ τοῦ σκότους διάθηται ἐν ἡμῖν
διαθήκην λόγῳ. The same word concerning the Church, 1. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν καινὸν
ἐτοιμάζων. 14. 6.
99 “Angel” is a very old designation for Christ (see Justin’s Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean
controversy, and is expressly claimed for him in Novatian’s treatise “de trinit.” 11. 25 ff. (the word was taken
from Old Testament passages which were applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a
designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though the matter was never very clear. There were
Christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea contradicted.
(See the Apoc. Sophoniæ, ed Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p. 10: “He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor
Archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our deliverance.”
Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: . . . . οὐ, καθάπερ ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν ἃνθρωπος, ὑπηρέτην τινὰ
πέμψας ἣ ἄγγελον ἣ ἄρχοντα ἣ τινα τῶν διεπόντων τὰ ἐπίγεια ἣ τινα τῶν πεπιστευμένων τὰς ἐν οὐρανοῖς
διοικήσεις, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων, κ.τ.λ.) Yet it never got the length of a great
controversy, and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the designation “Angel” became harmless and then
vanished.
100 Παῖς (after Isaiah): this designation, frequently united with Ἰησοῦς and with the adjectives ἅγιος and
ἡγαπημένος (see Barn. 3. 6: 4. 3: 4. 8: Valent. ap. Clem. Alex, Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isaiæ), seems
to have been at the beginning a usual one. It sprang undoubtedly from the Messianic circle of ideas, and at its
basis lies the idea of election. It is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the background and
finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical prayers: see 1 Clem. 59. 2; Barn. 61: 9. 2; Acts iii. 13. 26; iv.
27. 30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Theclæ, 17. 24; Sibyl. I. v. 324, 331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10:
ὁ ἁγαπητὸς παῖς, 9. I; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: ὁ μονογενὴς παῖς, and my note on
Barn. 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus as well as David is in one statement called “Servant of God.” Barnabas,
who calls Christ the “Beloved,” uses the same expression for the Church (4. 1. 9); see also Ignat. ad Smyrn. inscr.
152
that he will judge the living and the dead,101 etc., expression is given to ideas about Jesus,
in the Gentile Christian communities, which are borrowed from the thought that he is the
Christ called of God and entrusted with an office.102 Besides, there was a very old designation
186
handed down from the circle of the disciples, and specially intelligible to Gentile Christians,
though not frequent and gradually disappearing, viz., “the Master”.103
3. But the earliest tradition not only spoke of Jesus as κύριος, σωτήρ, and διδάσκαλος,
but as “ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ”, and this name was firmly adhered to in the Gentile Christian
communities.104 It followed immediately from this that Jesus belongs to the sphere of God,
and that, as is said in the earliest preaching known to us,105 one must think of him “ὡς περὶ
101 See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1; Barn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp.
in Euseb., H. E. III. 20 6: Justin Dial. 118.
102 There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the “anointed” (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestle’s
correction is right, Justin’s Apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on that point). But the meaning
and the effect of this anointing was very obscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6): Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ
κοσμῆσαι τα πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται, and therefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an ex-
pression of the cosmic significance of Christ.
103 See the Apologists Apost. K. O. (Texte v. Unters. II. 5. p. 25), προορῶντας τοὺς λόγους τοῦ διδασκάλου
ἡμῶν, ibid., p. 28: ὅτε ᾔτησεν ὁ διδασκάλος τὸν ἄρτον, ibid. p. 30: προέλεγεν, ὅτε ἐδίδασκν. Apost. Constit.
(original writing) III. 6: αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν καὶ κύριος. III. 7: ὁ κύριος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν εἷπεν. III.
19: III. 20: V. 12: 1 Clem. 13. 1 . . . . τῶν λόγων τοῦ κύριου Ἰησοῦ, οὓς ἐλάκησεν διδάσκων. Polyc. Ep. 2:
μνημονεύοντες ὧν εἶπεν ὁ κυρίος διδάσκων. Ptolem. ad Floram. 5: ἡ διδασκαλια τοῦ σωτῆρος.
104 The baptismal formula, which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period, preserved
it above all. The addition of ἴδιος, πρωτόποκος is worthy of notice. Μονογενής (= the only begotten and also
the beloved) is not common; it is found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church, and in
Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3).
105 The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the words: Ἀδελφοί, οὕτως δεῖ ἦμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ
Ἰησοῦ, ὡς περὶ θεοῦ, ὡς περὶ κριτοῦ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, (this order in which the Judge appears as the higher
is also found in Barn. 7. 2), καὶ οὐ δεῖ ἡμᾶς μικρὰ φρονεῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν· ἐν τᾧ γὰρ φρονεῖν ἡμᾶς
μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ καί ἐλριζομεν λαβεῖν. This argumentation (see also the following verses up to II. 7) is
very instructive; for it shews the grounds on which the φρονεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς περὶ θεοῦ was based. H. Schultz,
(L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly remarks: “In the second Epistle of Clement, and in the Shepherd,
the Christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance, through faith in Christ as the world-
ruling King and Judge, that the community of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and ascetic
works.
153
θεοῦ”. This formula describes in a classic manner the indirect “theologia Christi” which we
find unanimously expressed in all witnesses of the earliest epoch.106 We must think about
Christ as we think about God, because, on the one hand, God had exalted him, and committed
187
106 Pliny in his celebrated letter (96), speaks of a “Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo” on the part of the
Christians. Hermas has no doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as God’s
Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning, εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην καὶ κυριύτητα (Sim. V. 6. 1).
But that simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere, and that one must think of him as of God. But there
was no unanimity beyond that. The formula says nothing about the nature or constitution of Jesus. It might
indeed appear from Justin’s dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as θεός (not as ὁ θεός) was common
in the communities; but not only are there some passages in Justin him-self to be urged against this, but also
the testimony of other writers. Θεός, even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus. On
the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of Christ as of a God. In the first
place there were Old Testament passages such as Ps. XLV. 8: CX. 1 f., etc., which, as soon as they were interpreted
in relation to Christ, led to his getting the predicate θεός. These passages, with many others taken from the Old
Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well worth noting, that the author of the Epistle of
Barnabas avoided this expression, in a passage which must have suggested it. (12, 10, 11 on Ps. CX. 4.) The author
of the Didache calls him “ὁ θεός Δάβιδ” on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical
formulæ of exalted paradox, or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called God. See Ignat. ad Rom.
6. 3; ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ παθους τοῦ θεοῦ μου (the μον here should be observed); ad Eph. 1. 1:
ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἴματι θεοῦ: Tatian Orat. 13: διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος θεοῦ. As to the celebrated passage
1 Clem. ad Cor. 2, 10: τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ, (the αὐτοῦ refers to θεός) we may perhaps observe that that ὁ θεός
stands far apart. However, such a consideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that precisely
the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept “God”—and only this union—must have been in
Christendom from a very early period; see Acts XX. 28 . . . τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ
αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, and from a later period, Melito, Fragm. (in Routh Rel., Sacra I. 122): ὁ θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ
δεξιάς Ἰσραηλιτίδος, Anonym. ap. Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11; ὁ εὔσπλαγχνος θεός καὶ κυριός ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
οὐκ ἐβούλετο ἀπολέσθαι μάρτυρα τῶν ἰδίων παθημάτων; Test. XII. Patriarch. (Levi 4): ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τοῦ ὑψίστου;
Tertull. de carne 5; “passiones dei,” ad Uxor II. 3: “sanguine dei.” Tertullian also speaks frequently of the cruci-
fying of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (See Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400 sq.) These formulæ were
first subjected to examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were rejected by Athanasius, for example,
in the fourth century (cf. Apollin. II. 13. 14. Opp. I. p. 758); πῶς οὖν γεγράφατε ὅτι θεός ὁ διὰ σάρκος παθὼν
καὶ ἃναστάς, . . . . οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαὶ ἣ θεὸν διὰ σαρκὸς παθόντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα. They continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance in the christological
controversies of the fifth century. It is not quite certain whether there is a “theologia Christi” in such passages
as Tit. II. 13: 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally, θεός and Christus were often interchanged
in religious discourse (see above). In the so-called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1. 4) the dispensing of light,
knowledge, is traced back to Christ. It is said of him that, like a Father, he has called us children, he has delivered
154
us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence, and in this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is
called (2. 2. 3) the hearer of prayer and controller of history; but immediately thereon a saying of the Lord is
introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13). On the contrary, Isaiah XXIX. 13, is quoted 3. 5) as a declaration
of Jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula: λέγει ὁ θεός. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1:
16. 2); he is described simply as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1: 8. 2: 9. 5: etc.). Not only is there
frequent mention of the ἐντλαι (ἐντάλματα) of Christ, but 6, 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ Χριστὸῦ. Above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated
as if it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the other hand, (10. 1) the Father is he
who calls (see also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as sons (9. 10: 16. 1); he has given us
promises (11. 1. 6. 7); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.: 6. 9: 9. 6: 11. 7: 12. 1). He
will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4 we read of the day of Christ’s appearing, of his kingdom and of his
function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher treats of the relation of the community to God, where he describes
the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he desires to rule the religious
and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now Christ. But
this religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence
the theological speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the interchanging of God and Christ
is not always an expression of the high dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal
significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this
shews that there cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where Christ was roundly designated
θεός. It is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering) of God, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought
by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up the proposition that Christ is a God (or God). When, from
the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for passages ἐν οἷς θεολογεῖται ὁ
χριστός, because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old Testament, point
only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin, (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms
and odes (see the Anonymn. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4–6). In the following passages of the Ignatian Epistles “θεός”
appears as a designation of Christ; he is called ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν in Ephes. inscript; Rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3;
Eph. 1. 1, αῖμα θεοῦ; Rom. 6. 3, τὸ πάθος τοῦ θεοῦ μου; Eph. 7. 2, ἐ99 σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεός, in another reading,
ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ θεός, Smyrn. I. 1., Ἰ. Χρ. ὁ θεός ὁ οὕτως ὑμᾶς ποφίσας. The latter passage, in which the relative
clause must he closely united with “θεός,”; seems to form the transition to the three passages (Trail. 7. I; Smyrn.
6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called θεος without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious, see Lightfoot
in loco. In the same way the “deus Jesus Christus” in Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of
the verse. In the first, all Latin codd. have “dei filius,” and in the Greek codd. of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere
called θεός. We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as θεός in Clem. Rom. Homil. XVI. 15
sq.; Ὁ Πέτρος ἀπεκρίθη· ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν οὔτε θεοὺς εἶναι ἐφθέγξατο παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα οὔτε ἑαυτὸν
θεὸν εἶναι ἀνηγόρευσεν, ὑιὸν δὲ θεοῦ τοῦ τὰ πάντα διακοσμήσαντος τὸν εἱπόντα αὐτὸν εὐλόγως ἐμακάρισεν
καὶ ὁ Σίμων ἀπεκρίνατο· οὐ δοκεῖ σοι οὖν τὸν ἀπὸ θεὸν εἶναι; καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἔφη· πῶς τοῦτο εἶναι δύναται,
φράσον ἡμῖν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἡμεῖς εἰπεῖν σοι οὐ δυνάμεθα ὃτι μὴ ἡκούσαμεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ.
155
to him as Lord, judgment over the living and the dead, and because, on the other hand, he
has brought the knowledge of the truth, called sinful men, delivered them from the dominion
of demons, and hath led, or will lead them, out of the night of death and corruption to
188
eternal life. Jesus Christ is “our faith”, “our hope”, “our life”, and in this sense “our God”.
The religious assurance that he is this, for we find no wavering on this point, is the root of
the “theologia Christi”; but we must also remember that the formula “θεός” was inserted
beside “κύριος,” that the “dominus ac deus” was very common at that time,107 and that a
189
Saviour (σωτήρ) could only be represented somehow as a Divine being.108 Yet Christ never
was, as “θεός”, placed on an equality with the Father,109—monotheism guarded against
that. Whether he was intentionally and deliberately identified with Him the following
190
paragraph will shew.
4. The common confession did not go beyond the statements that Jesus is the Lord, the
Saviour, the Son of God, that one must think of him as of God, that dwelling now with God
in heaven, he is to be adored as προστάτης καὶ βοηθὸς τῆς ἀσθενείας, and as ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν
107 On the further use of the word θεός in antiquity, see above, §©8, p. 120 f.; the formula “θεός ἐκ θεοῦ” for
Augustus, even 24 years before Christ’s birth; on the formula “dominus ac deus,” see John XX. 28; the interchange
of these concepts in many passages beside one another in the anonymous writer (Euseb. II. E. V. 28. 11.) Domitian
first allowed himself to be called “dominus ac deus.” Tertullian Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to the general
situation in the second century. Here are brought forward the different causes which then moved men, the cultured
and the uncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of Divinity. In the third century the designation
of “domus ac deus noster” for Christ was very common, especially in the west. (See Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian,
Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek ὁ κύριος is also frequently so translated.) But only at this time had
the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor. It seems at first sight to follow from the statements
of Celsus (in Orig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very strict conception of the Godhead;
but his whole work shews how little that was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of the
time is not made with the view of discovering the “theologia Christi” itself in its ultimate roots—these roots lie
elsewhere, in the person of Christ and Christian experience; but that this experience, before any technical reflec-
tion, had so easily and so surely substituted the new formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained
without reference to the general religious ideas of the time.
108 The combination of θεὸς and σωτήρ in the Pastoral Epistles is very important. The two passages in the
New Testament in which perhaps a direct “theologia Christi” may be recognised, contain likewise the concept
σωτὴρ; see Tit. II. 13; προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (cf. Abbot, Journal of the Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2
Pet. I. 1: ἐν δικαιοσυνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος. Ἰ. Χρ. In both cases the ἡμῶν should be specially noted.,
Besides, θεὸς σωτήρ is also an ancient formula.
109 A very ancient formula ran “θεὸς καὶ θεὸς ὑιὸς,” see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim.
et Theoph. 4, etc. The formula is equivalent to θεὸς μονογενής (see Joh. I. 18).
156
προσφορῶν ἡμῶν [as guardian and helper of the weak and as High Priest of our oblations],
to be feared as the future Judge, to be esteemed most highly as the bestower of immortality,
that he is our hope and our faith. There are found rather, on the basis of that confession,
very diverse conceptions of the Person, that is, of the nature of Jesus, beside each other,110
which collectively exhibit a certain analogy with the Greek theologies, the naive and the
philosophic.111 There was as yet no such thing here as ecclesiastical “doctrines” in the strict
sense of the word, but rather conceptions more or less fluid, which were not seldom fashioned
ad hoc.112 These may be reduced collectively to two.113 Jesus was either regarded as the
man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after
being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptian Christology);114
191
110 Such conceptions are found side by side in the same writer. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement,
and even the first.
111 See §©6, p. 120. The idea of a θεοποιήσις was as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide
circles, however, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. But now there is no mis-
taking a new element everywhere. In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of θεοπιιήσις, it is found
in the fact that the deified Jesus was to be recognised not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world, equal
in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those Christologies which start with Christ as the heavenly
spiritual being, it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles, as was to be expected,
presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians and the latter more than the former.
112 This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal conceptions are frequently constructed by a combin-
ation of particular passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the fact that there was no
universally recognised theory about the nature of Jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not
lead us to suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of equal value, etc., therefore more
or less equally valid; on the contrary, everyone, so far as he had a theory at all, included his own in the revealed
truth. That they had not yet come into conflict is accounted for, on the one hand, by the fact that the different
theories ran up into like formulæ, and could even frequently be directly carried over into one another; and on
the other hand, by the fact that their representatives appealed to the same authorities. But we must, above all,
remember that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic element, which also had a share in the formation
of Christology, had been suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the struggle with Gnosticism,
or even during that struggle.
113 Both were clearly in existence in the Apostolic age.
114 Only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear expression to the Adoptian Christology, viz.,
the Shepherd of Hermas (see Sim. V. and IX. 1. 12). According to it, the Holy Spirit—it is not certain whether
he is identified with the chief Archangel—is regarded as the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation,
nay, was God’s counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the virtuous man (σάρξ) chosen by God, with whom
that Spirit of God was united. As he did not defile the Spirit, but kept him constantly as his companion, and
carried out the work to which the Deity had called him, nay, did more than he was commanded, he was in virtue
of a Divine decree adopted as a son and exalted to μεγάλη ἐξουσια καὶ κυριότης. That this Christology is set
157
forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and sprang from the Romish community, is of great significance.
The representatives of this Christology, who in the third century were declared to be heretics, expressly maintained
that it was at one time the ruling Christology at Rome and had been handed down by the Apostles. (Anonym.
H. E. V. 28. 3, concerning the Artemonites: φασὶ τοὺς μὲν προτέρους ἅπαντας καί αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους
παρειληφέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἅ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, καὶ τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθεια τοῦ κηρύγματος
μέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Βίκτορος . . . ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν.)
This assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find in Hermas. It cannot, certainly, be verified
by a superficial examination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer investigation shews that
the Adoptian Christology must at one time have been very widespread, that it continued here and there undis-
turbed up to the middle of the third century (see the Christology in the Acta Archelai. 49. 50), and that it con-
tinued to exercise great influence even in the fourth and fifth centuries (see Book II. c. 7). Something similar is
found even in some Gnostics, e.g., Valentinus himself (see Iren. I. 11. 1: καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν δὲ οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ
πληρώματι αἰων
́ ων προβεβλῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς, ἐξ́ ω δὲ γενομένης, κατὰ τὴν γνώμην τῶν κρειττόνων
ἀποκεκυῆσθαι μετὰ σκιᾶς τινός. Καὶ τοῦτον μέν, ἅτε ἅρρενα ὑπάρχοντα, ἀποκὸψαντα ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν σκιὰν,
ἀναδραμεῖν εἱς τὸ πλήρωμα. The same in the Exc. ex Theodot §§©22, 23, 32, 33), and the Christology of Basilides
presupposes that of the Adoptians. Here also belongs the conception which traces back the genealogy of Jesus
to Joseph. The way in which Justin (Dialogues 48, 49, 87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of Jesus, against
the objection of Trypho that a pre-existent Christ would not have needed to be filled with the Spirit of God. is
instructive. It is here evident that Justin deals with objections which were raised within the communities them-
selves to the pre-existence of Christ, on the ground of the account of the baptism In point of fact, this account
(it had, according to very old witnesses, see Resch, Agrapha Christi, p. 307, according to Justin; for example,
Dial. 88, 103, the wording: ἁμ
́ α τῷ ἀναβῆναι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ λεχθείσης
υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; see the Cod. D. of Luke. Clem. Alex. etc.) forms the strongest
foundation of the Adoptian Christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how one compounds with
it from the second to the fifth century, an investigation which deserves a special monograph. But, of course, the
edge was taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth of Jesus from the Holy Spirit, so that
the Adoptians in recognising this, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. It is now instructive
to see here how the history of the baptism, which originally formed the beginning of the proclamation of Jesus’
history, is suppressed in the earliest formulæ, and therefore also in the Romish Symbol, while the birth from
the Holy Spirit is expressly stated. Only in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. I: cf. ad Eph. 18. 2) is the baptism taken into account
in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by which it has no longer any significance for Jesus
himself (just as in the case of Justin, who concludes from the resting of the Spirit in his fulness upon Jesus, that
there will be no more prophets among the Jews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to Christians; compare
also the way in which the baptism of Jesus is treated in John I.). Finally, we must point out that in the Adoptian
Christology the parallel between Jesus and all believers who have the Spirit and are Sons of God, stands out very
clearly. (Cf. Herm. Sim. V. with Maud. III. V. 1: X. 2: most important is Sim. V. 6. 7.) But this was the very thing
that endangered the whole view. Celsus, I. 57, addressing Jesus, asks; “If thou sayest that every man whom Divine
Providence allows to be born (this is of course a formulation for which Celsus alone is responsible) is a son of
God, what advantage hast thou then over others?” We can see already in the Dialogue of Justin the approach of
158
or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh,
and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Chris-
tology).115 These two Christologies which are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusive—the
192
man who has become a God, and the Divine being who has appeared in human form—yet
193
the later great controversy, whether Christ is Son of God κατὰ γνώμην or κατὰ φύσιν, that is, had a pre-existence:
“καί γὰρ εἶσι τινες, he says, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ
ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι, οἷς οὐ συντίθεμαι” (c. 48).
115 This Christology, which may be traced back to the Pauline, but which can hardly have its point of departure
in Paul alone, is found also in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the writings of John, including the Apocalypse,
and is represented by Barnabas, I and 2 Clem., Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of the Pastoral Epistles, the Authors
of Præd. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, etc. The Classic formulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5: Χριστὸς ὁ
κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς ὡν
̀ μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεθμα ἐγήνετο σὰρξ καὶ οὡτ́ ως ἡμᾶς ἡκάλεσεν. According to Barnabas
(5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is παντὸς τοῦ κοσμου κύριος; to him God said, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κὸσμου, “Let us
make man, etc.” He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old Testament revelation. He is οὐχὶ ὑιὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλ:
ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τωπῷ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς (12. 10); the flesh is merely the veil of the Godhead, without which
man could not have endured the light (5. 10). According to 1 Clement, Christ is τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μελαγοσύνης
τοῦ θεοῦ (16. 2), who, if he had wished, could have appeared on earth ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας; he is exalted far
above the angels (32), as he is the Son of God (παθήματα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2. 1); he hath spoken through the Holy
Spirit in the Old Testament (22. 1). It is not certain whether Clement understood Christ under the λόγος
μεγαλοσύνης τοῦ θεοῦ (27. 4). According to 2 Clem., Christ and the Church are heavenly spiritual existences
which have appeared in the last times. Gen. 1. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see my note on the passage: We
learn from Origen that a very old Theologoumenon identified Jesus with the ideal of Adam, the Church with
that of Eve. Similar ideas about Christ are found in Gnostic Jewish Christians); one must think about Christ as
about God (I. 1). Ignatius writes (Eph. 7. 2): Εἰς, ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς καὶ
ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητος
καὶ τότε ἀπαθής Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν. As the human predicates stand here first, it might appear as
though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus became God (ὁ θεός ἡμῶν, Cf. Eph. inscr.: 18. 2). In point of fact,
he regards Jesus as Son of God only by his birth from the Spirit; but on the other hand, Jesus is ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς πατρός
προελθῶν (Magn. 7. 2), is λόγος θεοὕ (Magn. 8. 2), and when Ignatius so often emphasises the truth of Jesus’
history against Docetism (Trall. 9. for example), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the Gnostics that
Jesus is by nature a spiritual being. But it is well worthy of notice that Ignatius, as distinguished from Barnabas
and Clement, really gives the central place to the historical Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary,
and his work. The like is found only in Irenæus. The pre-existence of Christ is presupposed by Polycarp. (Ep.
7. 1); but, like Paul, he strongly emphasises a real exaltation of Christ (2. 1). The author of Præd. Petri calls
Christ the λόγος (Clem. Strom. I. 29, 182). As Ignatius calls him this also, as the same designation is found in
the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse of John (the latter a Christian adaptation of a Jewish writing), in the Act.
159
came very near each other when the Spirit of God implanted in the man Jesus was conceived
as the pre-existent Son of God,116 and when, on the other hand, the title, Son of God, for
that pneumatic being was derived only from the miraculous generation in the flesh; yet both
these seem to have been the rule.117 Yet, in spite of all transitional forms, the two Christolo-
194
gies may be clearly distinguished. Characteristic of the one is the development through
which Jesus is first to become a Godlike Ruler,118 and connected therewith, the value put
195
Joh. (see Zahn, Acta Joh. p. 220), finally, as Celsus (II. 31) says quite generally, “The Christians maintain that
the Son of God is at the same time his incarnate Word,” we plainly perceive that this designation for Christ was
not first started by professional philosophers (see the Apologists, for example, Tatian, Orat. 5, and Melito Apolog.
fragm. in the Chron. pasch. p. 483, ed. Dindorf: Χριστὸς ὤν θεοῦ λόγος πρό αἰώνων). We do not find in the
Johannine writings such a Logos speculation as in the Apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order
to shew that it has its truth in the appearing of Jesus Christ. The ideas about the existence of a Divine Logos
were very widely spread; they were driven out of philosophy into wide circles. The Author of the Alterc. Jas. et
Papisci conceived the phrase in Gen. I. 1, ἐνἀρχῇ, as equivalent to ἐν ὑιῷ (χριστῷ) Jerome, Quæst. hebr. in
Gen. p. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: θεὸς ἡν ἐν ἀρχῇ τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν. Ignatius (Eph. 3)
also called Christ ἡ γνώμη τοῦ πατρός (Eph. 17: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ θεοῦ); that is a more fitting expression than λόγος.
The subordination of Christ as a heavenly being to the Godhead is seldom or never carefully emphasised, though
it frequently comes plainly into prominence. Yet the author of the second Epistle of Clement does not hesitate
to place the pre-existent Christ and the pre-existent Church on one level, and to declare of both that God created
them (c. 14). The formulæ φανεροῦσθαι ἐν σαρκί, or γίγνεσθαι σάρξ, are characteristic of this Christology. It
is worthy of special notice that the latter is found in all those New Testament writers who have put Christianity
in contrast with the Old Testament religions, and proclaimed the conquest of that religion by the Christian, viz.,
Paul, John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
116 Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link; Christologie des Hermas, and Weizsäcker, Gott. Gel. Anz.
1886, p. 830, declare his Christology to be directly pneumatic): Christ is then identified with this Holy Spirit
(see Acta Archel. 50), similarly Ignatius (ad Magn. 15): κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὁς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς,
This formed the transition to Gnostic conceptions on the one hand, to pneumatic Christology on the other. But
in Hermas the real substantial thing in Jesus is the σάρξ.
117 Passages may indeed be found in the earliest Gentile Christian literature in which Jesus is designated Son
of God, independently of his human birth and before it (so in Barnabas, against Zahn), but they are not numerous.
Ignatius very clearly deduces the predicate “Son” from the birth in the flesh. Zahn, Marcellus, p. 216 ff.
118 The distinct designation “θεοποίησις” is not found, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing
itself quite distinctly, (see Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: νομίζοντες ἀπὸ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι
καί ὑιὸν θεοῦ, καὶ εἶναι μὲν πρότερον ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατὰ προκοπὴν δὲ εἰληφέναι τὴν τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ
προσηγορίαν). The stages of the προκοπὴ were undoubtedly the birth, baptism and resurrection. Even the ad-
160
on the miraculous event at the baptism; of the other, a naive docetism.119 For no one as yet
thought of affirming two natures in Jesus:120 the Divine dignity appeared rather, either as
a gift,121 or the human nature (σάρξ) as a veil assumed for a time, or as the metamorphosis
of the Spirit.122 The formula that Jesus was a mere man (ψίλὸς ἀν
́ θρωπος), was undoubtedly
196
herents of the pneumatic Christology could not at first help recognising that Jesus, through his exaltation, got
more than he originally possessed. Yet in their case this conception was bound to become rudimentary, and it
really did so.
119 The settlement with Gnosticism prepared a still always uncertain end for this naive Docetism. Apart from
Barn 5. 12, where it plainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it which have not accidentally
either perished or been concealed. In the communities of the second century there was frequently no offence
taken at Gnostic docetism (see the Gospel of Peter, Clem. Alex., Adumbrat. in Joh. Ep. I. c. 1. [Zahn, Forsch. z.
Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons, III p. 87]; “Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod
erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed
locum manui præbuisse discipuli.” Also Acta Joh. p. 209, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his polemic against “δόκησις”
proper, one can still perceive a “moderate docetism” in Clem. Alex., to which indeed certain narratives in the
Canonical Gospels could not but lead. The so-called Apocryphal literature (Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of
Apostles), lying on the boundary between heretical and common Christianity, and preserved only in scanty
fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears, throughout favourable to Docetism. But the later recensions
attest that it was read in wide circles.
120 Even such a formulation as we find in Paul (e.g., Rom. I. 3 f. κατὰ σάρκα—κατὰ πνεῦμα) does not seem
to have been often repeated (yet see 1 Clem. 32. 2). It is of value to Ignatius only, who has before his mind the
full Gnostic contrast. But even to him we cannot ascribe any doctrine of two natures: for this requires as its
presupposition, the perception that the divinity and humanity are equally essential and important for the per-
sonality of the Redeemer Christ. Such insight, however, presupposes a measure and a direction of reflection
which the earliest period did not possess. The expression “δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ” first appears in a fragment of
Melito, whose genuineness is not, however, generally recognised (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 257). Even
the definite expression for Christ, θεὸς ὣν ὀμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος, was fixed only in consequence of the Gnostic
controversy.
121 Hermas (Sim. V. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of Jesus thus: ἵνα καὶ ἡ σάρξ αὕτη, δουλεύσασα τῷ πνεύμαρι
ἀμέμπτως, σχῇ τόπον τινὰ κατασκήνώσεως, καὶ μὴ δοξῃ τὸν μισθὸν τῆς δουλείας αὐτῆς ἀπολωλεκέναι. The
point in question is a reward of grace which consists in a position of rank (see Sim. V. 6. 1). The same thing is
manifest from the statements of the later Adoptians. (Cf. the teaching of Paul Samosata.)
122 Barnabas, e.g., conceives it as a veil (5. 10: εἰ γὰρ μή ἦλθεν εν σαρκί, οὐδ᾽ ἄν πως οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐσώθησαν
βλέποντες αὐτόν· ὅτε τὸν μέλλοντα μὴ εἶναι ἥλιον ἐμβλέποντες οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν εἰς τὰς ἀκτῖνας αὐτοῦ
ἀντοφθαλμῆσαι). The formulation of the Christian idea in Celsus is instructive (c. Cels. VI. 69): “Since God is
161
always and from the first regarded as offensive.123 But the converse formulæ, which identified
the person of Jesus in its essence with the Godhead itself, do not seem to have been rejected
with the same decision.124 Yet such formulæ may have been very rare, and even objects of
suspicion, in the leading ecclesiastical circles, at least until after the middle of the second
century we can point to them only in documents which hardly found approbation in wide
197
great and not easily accessible to the view, he put his spirit in a body which is like our own, and sent it down in
order that we might be instructed by it.” To this conception corresponds the formula: ἔρχεσθαι (φανεροῦσθαι)
εν σαρκί (Barnabas, frequently; Polyc. Ep. 7. 1). But some kind of transformation must also have been thought
of (see 2 Clem. 9. 5, and Celsus IV. 18: “Either God, as these suppose, is really transformed into a mortal body
...” Apoc. Sophon. ed Stern. 4 fragm. p. 10; “He has transformed himself into a man who comes to us to redeem
us”). This conception might grow out of the formula σάρξ ἐγένετο (Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2 is of special importance
here). One is almost throughout here satisfied with the σάρξ of Christ, that is the ἀληθεία τῆς σαρκός, against
the heretics (so Ignatius, who was already antignostic in his attitude). There is very seldom any mention of the
humanity of Jesus. Barnabas (12), the author of the Didache (c. 10. 6. See my note on the passage), and Tatian
questioned the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, which was strongly emphasised by Ignatius; nay, Barnabas even expressly
rejects the designation “Son of Man” (12. 10; ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς, οὐχὶ ὑιὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τύπῳ
δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς). A docetic thought, however, lies in the assertion that the spiritual being Christ only
assumed human flesh, however, much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. The passage 1 Clem. 49. 6, is
quite unique: τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς . . . καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν καὶ
τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἥμῶν. One would fain believe this an interpolation; the same idea is first found in
Irenæus. (V. 1. 1).
123 Even Hermas does not speak of Jesus as ἄνθρωπος (see Link). This designation was used by the represent-
atives of the Adoptian Christology only after they had expressed their doctrine antithetically and developed it
to a theory, and always with a certain reservation. The “ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς” in 1 Tim. II. 5 is used in a
special sense. The expression ἄνθρωπος for Christ appears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage
Smyrn. 4. 2: αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρωπου γενομένου, apart from the γενομένου, is critically
suspicious, as well as the fourth, Eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in connections which seem
to modify the humanity; see Eph. 20. 1: οἰκονομία εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν; Eph. 20. 2: τῷ
ὑιῷ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὑιῷ θεοῦ.
124 See above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. We have no sure evidence that the later so-called Modalism (Monar-
chianism) had representatives before the last third of the second century; yet the polemic of Justin, Dial. 128.
seems to favour the idea, (the passage already presupposes controversies about the personal independence of
the pre-existent pneumatic being of Christ beside God; but one need not necessarily think of such controversies
within the communities; Jewish notions might be meant, and this, according to Apol. 1. 63, is the more probable).
The judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were numerous formulæ in practical use which could be
so understood, as if Christ was to be completely identified with the God-head itself (see Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2, besides
Melito in Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 419, and Noëtus in the Philos. IX. 10, p. 448). These formula may, in point of
162
circles. The assumption of the existence of at least one heavenly and eternal spiritual being
beside God was plainly demanded by the Old Testament writings, as they were understood;
so that even those whose Christology did not require them to reflect on that heavenly being
were forced to recognise it.125 The pneumatic Christology accordingly meets us wherever
there is an earnest occupation with the Old Testament, and wherever faith in Christ as the
perfect revealer of God occupies the foreground, therefore not in Hermas, but Certainly in
198
fact, have been so understood, here and there, by the rude and uncultivated. The strongest again is presented
in writings whose authority was always doubtful: see the Gospel of the Egyptians (Epiph. H. 62. 2), in which
must have stood a statement somewhat to this effect: τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑιὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν
εἶναι ἁγ́ ιον πνεῦμα, and the Acta Joh. (ed. Zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἡμῶν θεὸς ὁ εὐσ́ πλαγχνος, ὁ ἐλεήμων,
ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ καθαρός, ὁ ἀμίαντος, ὁ μόνος, ὁ εἷς, ὁ ἀμετάβλητος, ὁ εἰλικρινής, ὁ ἄδολος, ὁ μὴ ὀργιζόμενος, ὁ
πᾶσης ἡμῖν λεγομένης ἣ νοουμένης προσηγορίας ἀνώτερος καὶ ὑψηλότερος ἡμῶν θεὸς Ἰησοῦς). In the Act.
Joh. are found also prayers with the address θεὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ (pp. 242, 247). Even Marcion and in part the
Montanists—both bear witness to old traditions—put no value on the distinction between God and Christ; cf.
the Apoc. Sophon. A witness to a naive Modalism is found also in the Acta Pionii 9: “Quem deum colis? Respondit:
Christum. Polemon (judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant Christians had immediately before
confessed God the Creator]. Respondit: Non; sed ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt; cf. c. 16. Yet a
reasoned Modalism may perhaps he assumed here. See also the Martyr Acts; e.g., Acta Petri, Andrae, Pauli et
Dionysiæ 1 (Ruinart, p. 205): ἡμεῖς οἱ Χριστὸν τὸν βασιλέα ἐχ́ ομεν, ὁτ́ ι ἀληθινὸς θεός ἐστιν καὶ ποιητὴς οὐρανοῦ
καὶ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης. “Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sæculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre.”
Act. Nicephor. 3 (p. 285). I take no note of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, out of which one can, of
course, beautifully verify the strict Modalistic, and even the Adoptian Christology. But the Testamenta are not
a primitive or Jewish Christian writing which Gentile Christians have revised, but a Jewish writing christianised
at the end of the second century by a Catholic of Modalistic views. But he has given us a very imperfect work,
the Christology of which exhibits many contradictions. It is instructive to find Modalism in the theology of the
Simonians, which was partly formed according to Christian ideas; see Irenæus I. 23, 1: “hic igitur a multis quasi
deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui inter Judæos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria
autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus adventaverit.
125 That is a very important fact which clearly follows from the Shepherd, Even the later school of the Adoptians
in Rome, and the later Adoptians in general, were forced to assume a divine hypostasis beside the Godhead,
which of course sensibly threatened their Christology. The adherents of the pneumatic Christology partly made
a definite distinction between the pre-existent Christ and the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., 1 Clem. 22. 1), and partly
made use of formulæ from which one could infer an identity of the two. The conceptions about the Holy Spirit
were still quite fluctuating: whether he is a power of God, or personal; whether he is identical with the pre-existent
Christ, or is to be distinguished from him; whether he is the servant of Christ (Tatian Orat. 13); whether he is
only a gift of God to believers, or the eternal Son of God, was quite uncertain. Hermas assumed the latter, and
even Origen (de princip. præf. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided whether or not the Holy Spirit is
163
Barnabas, Clement, etc. The future belonged to this Christology because the current expos-
ition of the Old Testament seemed directly to require it, because it alone permitted the close
connection between creation and redemption, because it furnished the proof that the world
and religion rest upon the same Divine basis, because it was represented in the most valuable
writings of the early period of Christianity, and finally, because it had room for the specula-
tions about the Logos. On the other hand, no direct and natural relation to the world and
to universal history could be given to the Adoptian Christology, which was originally de-
termined eschatologically. If such a relation, however, were added to it, there resulted for-
mulæ such as that of two Sons of God, one natural and eternal, and one adopted, which
corresponded neither to the letter of the Holy Scriptures, nor to the Christian preaching.
Moreover, the revelations of God in the Old Testament made by Theophanies must have
seemed, because of this their form, much more exalted than the revelations made through
a man raised to power and glory, which Jesus constantly seemed to be in the Adoptian
Christology. Nay, even the mysterious personality of Melchisedec, without father or mother,
might appear more impressive than the Chosen Servant, Jesus, who was born of Mary, to a
199
mode of thought which, in order to make no mistake, desired to verify the Divine by outer
marks. The Adoptian Christology, that is the Christology which is most in keeping with the
self-witness of Jesus (the Son as the chosen Servant of God), is here shewn to be unable to
assure to the Gentile Christians those conceptions of Christianity which they regarded as
of highest value. It proved itself insufficient when confronted by any reflection on the relation
of religion to the cosmos, to humanity, and to its history. It might, perhaps, still have seemed
doubtful about the middle of the second century as to which of the two opposing formulæ,
“Jesus is a man exalted to a Godlike dignity” and “Jesus is a divine spiritual being incarnate”,
would succeed in the Church. But one only needs to read the pieces of writing which represent
the latter thesis, and to compare them, say, with the Shepherd of Hermas, in order to see to
which view the future must belong. In saying this, however, we are anticipating; for the
Christological reflections were not yet vigorous enough to overcome enthusiasm and the
likewise to be regarded as God’s Son. The baptismal formula prevented the identification of the Holy Spirit with
the pre-existent Christ, which so readily suggested itself. But so far as Christ was regarded as a πνεῦμα, his further
demarcation from the angel powers was quite uncertain, as the Shepherd of Hermas proves (though see 1 Clem.
36). For even Justin, in a passage, no doubt, in which his sole purpose was to shew that the Christians were not
ἄθεοι, could venture to thrust in between God, the on and the Spirit, the good angels as beings who were wor-
shipped and adored by the Christians (Apol I. 6 [if the text be genuine and not an interpolation]; see also the
Suppl. of Athanagoras). Justin, and certainly most of those who accepted a pre-existence of Christ, conceived
of it as a real pre-existence. Justin was quite well acquainted with the controversy about the independent quality
of the power which proceeded from God. To him it is not merely, “Sensus, motus, affectus dei,” but a “personalis
substantia” (Dial. 128).
164
expectation of the speedy end of all things; and the mighty practical tendency of the new
religion to a holy life did not allow any theory to become the central object of attention. But,
still, it is necessary to refer here to the controversies which broke out at a later period; for
the pneumatic Christology forms an essential article which cannot be dispensed with, in
the expositions of Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius; and Justin shews that he cannot conceive
of a Christianity without the belief in a real pre-existence of Christ. On the other hand, the
liturgical formulæ, the prayers, etc., which have been preserved, scarcely ever take notice of
the pre-existence of Christ; they either comprise statements which are borrowed from the
Adoptian Christology, or they testify in an unreflective way to the Dominion and Deity of
Christ.
5. The ideas of Christ’s work which were influential in the communities—Christ as
Teacher: creation of knowledge, setting up of the new law; Christ as Saviour: creation of
life, overcoming of the demons, forgiveness of sins committed in the time of error,—were
by some, in conformity with Apostolic tradition and following the Pauline Epistles, positively
200
connected with the death and resurrection of Christ, while others maintained them without
any connection with these events. But one nowhere finds independent thorough reflections
on the connection of Christ’s saving work with the facts proclaimed in the preaching, above
all, with the death on the cross and the resurrection as presented by Paul. The reason of this
undoubtedly is that in the conception of the work of salvation, the procuring of forgiveness
fell into the background, as this could only be connected by means of the notion of sacrifice,
with a definite act of Jesus, viz., with the surrender of his life. Consequently, the facts of the
destiny of Jesus combined in the preaching formed only for the religious fancy, not for re-
flection, the basis of the conception of the work of Christ, and were therefore by many
writers, Hermas, for example, taken no notice of. Yet the idea of suffering freely accepted,
of the cross and of the blood of Christ, operated in wide circles as a holy mystery in which
the deepest wisdom and power of the Gospel must somehow lie concealed.126 The peculiarity
and uniqueness of the work of the historical Christ seemed, however, to be prejudiced by
the assumption that Christ, essentially as the same person, was already in the Old Testament
the Revealer of God. All emphasis must therefore fall on this—without a technical reflection
which cannot be proved—that the Divine revelation has now, through the historical Christ,
become accessible and intelligible to all, and that the life which was promised will shortly
be made manifest.127
126 See the remarkable narrative about the cross in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, and in Justin, Apol.
I. 55.
127 We must, above all things, be on our guard here against attributing dogmas to the churches, that is to say,
to the writers of this period. The difference in the answers to the question, How far and by what means Jesus
procured salvation? was very great, and the majority undoubtedly never at all raised the question, being satisfied
with recognising Jesus as the revealer of God’s saving will (Didache, 10. 2: εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπερ
165
τοῦ ἀγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὖ καεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίας ἡμῶν καὶ ὑπέρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως αί ἀθανασίας,
ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ ταιδος σου), without reflecting on the fact that this saving will was already
revealed in the Old Testament. There is nowhere any mention of saving work of Christ in the whole Didache—nay,
even the Kerygma about him is not taken notice of. The extensive writing of Hermas shews that this is not an
accident. There is absolutely no mention here of the birth, death, resurrection, etc., of Jesus, although the author
in Sim. V. had an occasion for mentioning them. He describes the work of Jesus as (1) preserving the people
whom God had chosen, (2) purifying the people from sin, (3) pointing out the path of life and promulgating
the Divine law (cc. 5. 6). This work however, seems to have been performed by the whole life and activity of Jesus;
even to the purifyng of sin the author has only added the words; (καὶ αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐκαθάρισε)
πολλὰ κοπιάσας καὶ πολλοὺς κόποὺς ἡντληκώς (Sim. V. 6. 2). But we must further note that Hermas held the
proper and obligatory work of Jesus to be only the preservation of the chosen people (from demons in the last
days, and at the end), while in the other two articles he saw a performance in excess of his duty, and wished
undoubtedly to declare therewith, that the purifying from sin and the giving of the law are not, strictly speaking,
integral parts of the Divine plan of salvation, but are due to the special goodness of Jesus (this idea is explained
by Moralism). Now, as Hermas and others saw the saving activity of Jesus in his whole labours, others saw sal-
vation given and assured in the moment of Jesus’ entrance into the world, and in his personality as a spiritual
being become flesh. This mystic conception, which attained such wide-spread recognition later on, has a repres-
entative in Ignatius, if one can at all attribute clearly conceived doctrines to this emotional confessor. That
something can be declared of Jesus, κατὰ πνεῦμα and κατὰ σάρκα—this is the mystery on which the significance
of Jesus seems to Ignatius essentially to rest, but how far is not made clear. But the πάθος (αἷμα, σταυρός) and
ἀναστάσις of Jesus are to the same writer of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formulæ of worship,
and turning to account reminiscences of Apostolic sayings, he seems to wish to base the whole salvation brought
by Christ on his suffering and resurrection (see Lightfoot on Eph. inscr. Vol. II, p. 25). In this connection also,
he here and there regards all articles of the Kerygma as of fundamental significance. At all events, we have in
the Ignatian Epistles the first attempt in the post-Apostolic literature to connect all the theses of the Kerygma
about Jesus as closely as possible with the benefits which he brought. But only the will of the writer is plain here,
all else is confused, and what is mainly felt is that the attempt to conceive the blessings of salvation as the fruit
of the sufferings and resurrection, has deprived them of their definiteness and clearness. In proof we may adduce
the following: If we leave out of account the passages in which Ignatius speaks of the necessity of repentance for
the Heretics, or the Heathen, and the possibility that their sins may be forgiven (Philad. 3. 2: 8. 1; Smyrn. 4. 1:
5. 3; Eph. 10. 1), there remains only one passage in which the forgiveness of sin is mentioned, and that only
contains a traditional formula (Smyrn. 7. 1: σάρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ ὑπέρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσα). The
same writer, who is constantly speaking of the πάθος and ἀναστάσις of Christ, has nothing to say to the com-
munities to which he writes, about the forgiveness of sin. Even the concept “sin,” apart from the passages just
quoted, appears only once, viz., Eph. 14. 2: οὐδεὶς πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει. Ignatius has only once
spoken to a community about repentance (Smyrn. 9. 1). It is characteristic that the summons to repentance runs
exactly as in Hermas and 2 Clem., the conclusion only being peculiarly Ignatian. It is different with Barnabas,
Clement and Polycarp. They (see 1 Clem. 7. 4: 12. 7: 21. 6: 49. 6: Barn. 5. 1 ff.) place the forgiveness of sin procured
by Jesus in the foreground, connect it most definitely with the death of Christ, and in some passages seem to
166
have a conception of that connection, which reminds us of Paul. But this just shews that they are dependent
here on Paul (or on 1st Peter), and on a closer examination we perceive that they very imperfectly understand
Paul, and have no independent insight into the series of ideas which they reproduce. That is specially plain in
Clement. For, in the first place, he everywhere passes over the resurrection (he mentions it only twice, once as
a guarantee of our own resurrection, along with the Phœnix and other guarantees, 24. 1; and then as a means
whereby the Apostles were convinced that the kingdom of God will come, 42. 3). In the second place, he in one
passage declares that the χάρις μετανοίας was communicated to the world through the shedding of Christ’s
blood (7. 4.). But this transformation of the ἄφοσις ἁμαρτιῶν into χάρις μετανοίας plainly shews that Clement
had merely taken over from tradition the special estimate of the death of Christ as procuring salvation; for it is
meaningless to deduce the χάρις μετανοίας from the blood of Christ. Barnabas testifies more plainly that Christ
behoved to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins (4. 3: 5. 1), nay, the chief aim of his letter is to
harmonise the correct understanding of the cross, the blood, and death of Christ in connection with baptism,
the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification (application of the idea of sacrifice). He also unites the death and resur-
rection of Jesus (5. 6: αὐτὸς δὲ ἵνα καταργήσῃ τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν δείξη, οτι ἐν σαρκὶ
ἕδει αὐτὸν φανερωθῆναι, ὑπέμεινεν, ἵνα καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἀποδῷ καὶ αὐτὸς εαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν
τὸν καινὸν ἑτοιμάζων, ἐπιδείξῃ, τῆς γῆς ὤν, ὅτρ τήν ὡνάστασιγ αὐτὸς ποιήσας κρινεῖ): but the significance of
the death of Christ is for him, at bottom, the fact that it is the fulfilment of prophecy. But the prophecy is related,
above all, to the significance of the tree, and so Barnabas on one occasion says with admirable clearness (5, 13);
αὐτὸς δὲ ἡθέλησεν οὕτω παθεῖν· ἔδει γὰρ ἵνα ἐπὶ ξύλου πάθῃ. The notion which Barnabas entertains of the
σάρξ of Christ suggests the supposition that he could have given up all reference to the death of Christ, if it had
not been transmitted as a fact and predicted in the Old Testament. Justin shews still less certainty. To him also,
as to Ignatius, the. cross (the death) of Christ is a great—nay, the greatest mystery, and he sees all things possible
in it (see Apol. 1. 35, 55). He knows, further, as a man acquainted with the Old Testament, how to borrow from
it very many points of view for the significance of Christ’s death, (Christ the sacrifice, the Paschal lamb; the
death of Christ the means of redeeming men; death as the enduring of the curse for us; death as the victory over
the devil; see Dial. 44, 90, 91, 111, 134). But in the discussions which set forth in a more intelligible way the sig-
nificance of Christ, definite facts from the history have no place at all, and Justin nowhere gives any indication
of seeing in the death of Christ more than the mystery of the Old Testament, and the confirmation of its trust-
worthiness. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that the idea of an individual righteous man being able
effectively to sacrifice himself for the whole, in order through his voluntary death to deliver them from evil, was
not unknown to antiquity. Origen (c. Celsum 1. 31) has expressed himself on this point in a very instructive
way. The purity and voluntariness of him who sacrifices himself are here the main things. Finally, we must be
on our guard against supposing that the expressions σωτηρία, ἀπολύτρωσις and the like, were as a rule related
to the deliverance from sin. In the superscription of the Epistle from Lyons, for example, (Euseb. H E. V. I. 3:
οἱ αὐτὴν τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἡμῖν πίστιν καὶ ἐλπιδα ἐχ́ οντες) the future redemption is manifestly to be understood
by ἀπολύτρωσις.
167
As to the facts of the history of Jesus, the real and the supposed, the circumstance that
they formed the ever repeated proclamation about Christ gave them an extraordinary signi- 201
ficance. In addition to the birth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, the death, the resurrec-
tion, the exaltation to the right hand of God, and the coming again, there now appeared
more definitely the ascension to heaven, and also, though more uncertainly, the descent
into the kingdom of the dead. The belief that Jesus ascended into heaven forty days after
the resurrection, gradually made way against the older conception, according to which re-
surrection and ascension really coincided, and against other ideas which maintained a longer
period between the two events. That probably is the result of a reflection which sought to
distinguish the first from the later manifestations of the exalted Christ, and it is of the utmost
202
importance as the beginning of a demarcation of the times. It is also very probable that the
acceptance of an actual ascensus in cœlum, not a mere assumptio, was favourable to the idea
of an actual descent of Christ de cœlo, therefore to the pneumatic Christology and vice versa.
But there is also closely connected with the ascensus in cœlum, the notion of a descensus ad
inferna, which commended itself on the ground of Old Testament prediction. In the first
century, however, it still remained uncertain, lying on the borders of those productions of
religious fancy which were not able at once to acquire a right of citizenship in the communit-
ies.128
203
128 On the Ascension, see my edition of the Apost. Fathers I. 2, p. 138. Paul knows nothing of an Ascension,
nor is it mentioned by Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp. In no case did it belong to the earliest preaching.
Resurrection and sitting at the right hand of God are frequently united in the formulæ (Eph. I. 20: Acts. II. 32
ff.) According to Luke XXIV. 51, and Barn. 15. 9, the ascension into heaven took place on the day of the resur-
rection (probably also according to Joh. XX. 17; see also the fragment of the Gosp. of Peter), and is hardly to he
thought of as happening but once. (Joh. III. 13: VI. 62; see also Rom. X. 6 f.; Eph. IV. 9 f.; I Pet. III. 19 f.; very
instructive for the origin of the notion), According to the Valentinians and Ophites, Christ ascended into
heaven 18 months after the resurrection (Iren. I. 3. 2: 30. 14); according to the Ascension of Isaiah, 545 days
(ed. Dillmann, pp. 43, 57 etc.); according to Pistis Sophia 11 years after the resurrection. The statement that the
Ascension took place 40 days after the resurrection is first found in the Acts of the Apostles. The position of the
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ, in the fragment of an old Hymn, 1 Tim. III. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ. Justin speaks very frequently of the Ascension into
heaven (see also Aristides). It is to him a necessary part of the preaching about Christ. On the descent into hell,
see the collection of passages in my edition of the Apost. Fathers, III. p. 232. It is important to note that it is
found already in the Gospel of Peter (ἐκήρυξας τοῖς κοιμωμένοις; ναί), and that even Marcion recognised it (in
Iren. I. 27. 3), as well as the Presbyter of Irenæus (IV. 27. 2), and Ignatius (ad Magn. 9. 3); see also Celsus in
Orig. II. 43. The witnesses to it are very numerous; sec Huidekoper, “The belief of the first three centuries con-
cerning Christ’s mission to the under-world.” New York, 1876.
168
One can plainly see that the articles contained in the Kerygma were guarded and defended
in their reality (κατ᾽ ἀληθείαν) by the professional teachers of the Church, against sweeping
attempts at explaining them away, or open attacks on them.129 But they did not yet possess
the value of dogmas, for they were neither put in an indissoluble union with the idea of
salvation, nor were they stereotyped in their extent, nor were fixed limits set to the imagin-
ation in the concrete delineation and conception of them.130
204
§©7. The Worship, the Sacred Ordinances, and the Organisation of the Churches.
It is necessary to examine the original forms of the worship and constitution, because
of the importance which they acquired in the following period even for the development of
doctrine.
1. In accordance with the purely spiritual idea of God, it was a fixed principle that only
a spiritual worship is well pleasing to Him, and that all ceremonies are abolished, ῖνα ὁ
καινὸς νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ ἀνθρωποποιητον ἔχῃ τὴν προσφοράν.131
But as the Old Testament and the Apostolic tradition made it equally certain that the worship
205
of God is a sacrifice, the Christian worship of God was set forth under the aspect of the
spiritual sacrifice. In the most general sense it was conceived as the offering of the heart and
of obedience, as well as the consecration of the whole personality, body and soul (Rom. XIII.
1) to God.132 Here, with a change of the figure, the individual Christian and the whole
community were described as a temple of God.133 In a more special sense, prayer as
129 See the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp.
130 The “facts” of the history of Jesus were handed down to the following period as mysteries predicted in the
Old Testament, but the idea of sacrifice was specially attached to the death of Christ, certainly without any closer
definition. It is very noteworthy that in the Romish baptismal confession, the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, the
baptism, the descent into the under-world, and the setting up of a glorious Kingdom on the earth, are not
mentioned. These articles do not appear even in the parallel confessions which began to be formed. The hesitancy
that yet prevailed here with regard to details is manifest from the fact, for example, that instead of the formula
“Jesus was born of (ἐκ) Mary,” is found the other, “He was born through (διὰ) Mary,” (see Justin, Apol. I. 22,
31-33, 54, 63; Dial. 23, 43, 45, 48, 54, 57, 63, 66, 75, 85, 87, l00, 105, 120, 127). Iren. (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne
20) first contested the δὶα against the Valentinians.
131 This was strongly emphasised; see my remarks on Barn. 2. 3. The Jewish cultus is often brought very close
to the heathen by Gentile Christian writers. Præd. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41): καινῶς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ
Ψριστοῦ σεβόμεθα. The statement in Joh. IV. 24: πνεῦμα ὁ θεὸς, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι
καί ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, was for long the guiding principle for the Christian worship of God.
132 Ps. LI. 19 is thus opposed to the ceremonial system (Barn. 2. 10). Polycarp consumed by fire is (Mart. 14.
1) compared to a κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἐκ μεγάλου ποιμνίου εἰς προσφοράν, ὁλοκαύτωμα δεκτὸν τῷ θεῷ
ἀτοιμασμένον.
133 See Barn. 6. 15: 16. 7-9; Tatian Orat. 15; Ignat. ad Eph. 9. 15; Herm. Mand. V. etc. The designation of
Christians as priests is not often found.
169
thanksgiving and intercession134 was regarded as the sacrifice which was to be accompanied,
without constraint or ceremony, by fasts and acts of compassionate love.135 Finally, prayers
offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought
by them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lord’s supper, and which were used
206
partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor, were regarded as sacrifice in
the most special sense (προσφορὰ, δῶρα).136 For the following period, however, it became
of the utmost importance, (1) that the idea of sacrifice ruled the whole worship, (2) that it
appeared in a special manner in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and consequently in-
vested that ordinance with a new meaning, (3) that the support of the poor, alms, especially
such alms as had been gained by prayer and fasting, was placed under the category of sacrifice
(Heb. XIII. 16); for this furnished the occasion for giving the widest application to the idea
of sacrifice, and thereby substituting for the original Semitic Old Testament idea of sacrifice
134 Justin, Apol. 1. 9: Dial. 117: Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαι καὶ εὐχαριστίαι, ὑπό τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι, τέλειαι
μόναι καὶ εὐάρεστοι εἰσι τῷ θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός φημι; see also still the later Fathers; Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31:
ἡμεῖς δι᾽ εὐχῆς τιμῶμεν τὸν θεὸν, καὶ ταύτην τὴν θυσίαν ἀρίστην, καὶ ἀγιωτάτην μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἀναπέμπομεν
τῷ δικαίῳ λόγῳ; Iren. III. 18. 3. Ptolem. ad Floram. 3: προσφορὰς προσφέρειν προσέταξεν ἡμῖν ὁ σωτήρ, ἀλλὰ
οὐχί τὰς δι᾽ ἀλόγων ζώων ἣ τούτων τῶν θωμιαμάτων ἀλλὰ διὰ πνευματικῶν αἴνων καὶ δοξῶν καὶ εὐχαριστίας
καὶ διὰ τῆς εἰς τοὶς πλησίον κοινωνίας καὶ ε̰ποιίας.
135 The Jewish regulations about fastings, together with the Jewish system of sacrifice were rejected; but on
the other hand, in virtue of words of the Lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary accompaniment of prayer,
and definite arrangements were already made for them (see Barn. 3; Didache 8; Herm. Sim. V. 1. ff. The fast is
to have a special value from the fact that whatever one saved by means of it, is to be given to the poor (see Hermas
and Aristides, Apol. 15; “And if any one among the Christians is poor and in want, and they have not overmuch
of the means of life, they fast two or three days, in order that they may provide those in need with the food they
require”). The statement of James I. 27: θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ θέῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστίν,
ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὀρφάνους καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology
(Polycarp. Ep. 4, called the Widows θυσιαστήριον of the community). Where moralistic views preponderated,
as in Hermas and 2 Clement, good works were already valued in detail; prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately,
and there was already introduced, especially under the influence of the so-called deutero-canonical writings of
the Old Testament, the idea of a special meritoriousness of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2 Clem.
16. 4). Still, the idea of the Christian moral life as a whole occupied the foreground (see Didache, cc. 1-5), and
the exhortations to love God and one’s neighbour, which, as exhortations to a moral life, were brought forward
in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general summons to renounce the world, just as the official di-
aconate of the churches originating in the cultus prevented the decomposition of them into a society of ascetics.
136 For details, see below in the case of the Lord’s Supper. It is specially important that even charity, through
its union with the cultus, appeared as sacrificial worship (see e.g., Polyc. Ep. 4. 3).
170
with its spiritual interpretation, the Greek idea with its interpretation.137 It may, however,
be maintained that the changes imposed on the Christian religion by Catholicism, are at no
point so obvious and far-reaching, as in that of sacrifice, and especially in the solemn ordin-
ance of the Lord’s supper, which was placed in such close connection with the idea of sacrifice.
207
2. When in the “Teaching of the Apostles,” which may be regarded here as a classic
document, the discipline of life in accordance with the words of the Lord, Baptism, the order
of fasting and prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord’s prayer, and the Eucharist are
reckoned the articles on which the Christian community rests, and when the common
Sunday offering of a sacrifice made pure by a brotherly disposition, and the mutual exercise
of discipline are represented as decisive for the stability of the individual community,138 we
perceive that the general idea of a pure spiritual worship of God has nevertheless been
realised in definite institutions, and that, above all, it has included the traditional sacred
ordinances, and adjusted itself to them as far as that was possible.139 This could only take
effect under the idea of the symbolical, and therefore this idea was most firmly attached to
these ordinances. But the symbolical of that time is not to be considered as the opposite of
the objectively real, but as the mysterious, the God produced (μυστήριον), as contrasted
with the natural, the profanely clear. As to Baptism, which was administered in the name
of the Father, Son and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73. 16-18, felt compelled to oppose the
custom of baptising in the name of Jesus, we noted above (Chap. III. p. 161 f.) that it was
regarded as the bath of regeneration, and as renewal of life, inasmuch as it was assumed that
by it the sins of the past state of blindness were blotted out.140 But as faith was looked upon
as the necessary condition,141 and as on the other hand, the forgiveness of the sins of the
past was in itself deemed worthy of God,142 the asserted specific result of baptism remained
208
still very uncertain, and the hard tasks which it imposed, might seem more important than
137 The idea of sacrifice adopted by the Gentile Christian communities was that which was expressed in indi-
vidual prophetic sayings and in the Psalms, a spiritualising of the Semitic Jewish sacrificial ritual, which, however,
had not altogether lost its original features. The entrance of Greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced before
Justin. Neither was there as yet any reflection as to the connection of the sacrifice of the Church with the sacrifice
of Christ upon the cross.
138 See my Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. d. Altchristl. Lit .II. 1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff.
139 There neither was a “doctrine” of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, nor was there any inner connection
presupposed between these holy actions. They were here and there placed together as actions by the Lord.
140 Melito, Fragm. XII. (Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418). Δύο συνεστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων παρεχόμενα,
πάθος διὰ Χριστόν καὶ βάπτισμα.
141 There is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition (see Hermas,
Vis. III. 7. 3; Justin, Apol. 1. 61). “Prius est prædicare posterius tinguere” (Tertull. “de bapt.” 14).
142 On the basis of repentance. See Præd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 43, 48.
171
the merely retrospective gifts which it proffered.143 Under such circumstances the rite could
not fail to lead believers about to be baptized to attribute value here to the mysterious as
such.144 But that always creates a state of things which not only facilitates, but positively
prepares for the introduction of new and strange ideas. For neither fancy nor reflection can
long continue in the vacuum of mystery. The names σφραγίς and φωτισμός, which at that
period came into fashion for baptism, are instructive, inasmuch as neither of them is a direct
designation of the presupposed effect of baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and as, besides,
both of them evince a Hellenic conception. Baptism in being called the seal,145 is regarded
as the guarantee of a blessing, not as the blessing itself, at least the relation to it remains
209
143 See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull. “de bapt.” 15: “Felix aqua quæ semel abluit, qum
ludibrio pecatoribus non est.
144 The sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion, were regarded as significant but not indispensable
symbols (see Didache. 7). The most important passages for baptism are Didache 7: Barn. 6. 11: 11. 1. 11 (the
connection in which the cross of Christ is here placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that for-
giveness of sin is the result of both); Herm. Vis. III. 3, Sim. IX. 16, Mand. IV. 3 (ἑτέρα μετάνοια οὐκ ἔστιν εἰ μὴ
ἐκείνη, ὅτε εἰς ὕδωρ κατέβημεν καὶ ἐλάβομεν ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν τῶν προτέρῶν); 2 Clem. 6. 9: 7. 6: 8. 6.
Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: τὸ βάπτισμα ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα. Specially important is Justin, Apol I. 61.
65. To this also belong many passages from Tertullian’s treatise “de bapt.”; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in the
third pseudo-Solomonic ode in the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcion’s baptismal formula in Irenæus
I. 21. 3. It clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the Didache that its author held that the pronouncing of
the sacred names over the baptised and over the water was essential, but that immersion was not; see the thorough
examination of this passage by Schaff. “The oldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve Apostles”
pp. 29-57. The controversy about the nature of John’s baptism in its relation to Christian baptism is very old in
Christendom; see also Tertull. “de bapt.” 10. Tertullian sees in John’s baptism only a baptism to repentance, not
to forgiveness.
145 In Hermas and 2 Clement. The expression probably arose from the language of the mysteries: see Appuleius,
“de Magia,” 55: “Sacrorum pleraque initia in Græcia participavi. Eorum quædam signa et monumenta tradita
mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.” Ever since the Gentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lord’s
Supper) according to the mysteries, they were of course always surprised by the parallel with the mysteries
themselves. That begins with Justin. Tertullian, “de bapt.” 5, says: “Sed enim nationes extraneæ, ab omni intellectu
spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris
quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithræ; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt.
Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlatæ aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus
et Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere præsumunt.
Item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat.” De praescr., 40: “Diabolus
ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique
172
obscure; in being called enlightenment,146 it is placed directly under an aspect that is foreign
to it. It would be different if we had to think of φωτισμός as a gift of the Holy Spirit, which
is given to the baptised as real principle of a new life and miraculous powers. But the idea
of a necessary union of baptism with a miraculous communication of the Spirit seems to
have been lost very early, or to have become uncertain, the actual state of things being no
longer favourable to it;147 at any rate, it does not explain the designation of baptism as
φωτισμός.
As regards the Lord’s Supper, the most important point is that its celebration became
210
more and more the central point, not only for the worship of the Church, but for its very
life as a Church. The form of this celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a
fitting expression of the brotherly unity of the community (on the public confession before
the meal, see Didache, 14, and my notes on the passage). The prayers which it included
presented themselves as vehicles for bringing before God, in thanksgiving and intercession,
every thing that affected the community; and the presentation of the elements for the holy
ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for the poor brethren, who in this
way received them from the hand of God himself. In all these respects, however, the holy
ordinance appeared as a sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named
credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit, et si adhuc memini, Mithras signat
illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit . . . . summum
pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes.” The ancient notion that matter has
a mysterious influence on spirit came very early into vogue in connection with baptism. We see that from Ter-
tullian’s treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of the water (c. 1 ff.). The water must, of course
have been first consecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of it). But then it is holy
water with which the Holy Spirit is united, and which is able really to cleanse the soul. See Hatch, “The influence
of Greek ideas, etc.,” p. 19. The consecration of the water is certainly very old: though we have no definite witnesses
from the earliest period. Even for the exorcism of the baptised before baptism I know of no earlier witness than
the Sentent. LXXXVII. episcoporum (Hartel. Opp. Cypr. I. p. 450, No. 37: “primo per mantis impositionem in
exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem”).
146 Justin is the first who does so (I. 61). The word comes from the Greek mysteries. On Justin’s theory of
baptism, see also I. 62. and Von Engelhardt, “Christenthum Justin’s,” p. 102 f.
147 Paul unites baptism and the communication of the Spirit: but they were very soon represented apart, see
the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, which are certainly very obscure because the author has evidently
never himself observed the descent of the Spirit, or anything like it. The ceasing of special manifestations of the
Spirit in and after baptism, and the enforced renunciation of seeing baptism accompanied by special shocks,
must be regarded as the first stage in the sobering of the churches.
173
εὐχαριστία, a sacrifice of thanksgiving.148 As an act of sacrifice, all the termini technici which
the Old Testament applied to sacrifice could be applied to it, and all the wealth of ideas
which the Old Testament connects with sacrifice could be transferred to it. One cannot say
211
that anything absolutely foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance, however
doubtful it may be whether in the idea of its founder the meal was thought of as a sacrificial
meal. But it must have been of the most wide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas
was in this way connected with the ordinance, which had nothing whatever in common
either with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of Christ’s death,149 or with the mysterious
symbols of the body and blood of Christ. The result was that the one transaction obtained
a double value. At one time it appeared as the προσφορά and θυσία of the Church,150 as the
148 The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in
Ignatius, and above all in Justin (I. 65 f.). But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40–44) he
draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as
the chief function of the former (44. 4) προσφέρειν τὰ δῶρα. This is not the place to enquire whether the first
celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was
already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing
in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi I. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes
on Didache, 14. 3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers
at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution τοῦτο ποιεῖτε,
contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be repres-
ented as a sacrifice, and this the more that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand
ποιεῖν in the sense of θύειν. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the “agapæ” connected
with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect
could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as προσφοραί for the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spir-
itual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the θυσία proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial.
117). The elements are only δῶρα, προσφοραί, which obtain their value from the prayers in which thanks are
given for the gifts of creation and redemption as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction
of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called
εὐχαριστία (Justin, Apol. I. 66: ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεἷται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία. Didache 9. 1: Ignat., because it is
τροφὴ εὐχαριστηθεῖςα. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the
object of ποιεῖν, and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper
consists rather, according to Justin, only in the εὐχαριστίαν ποιεῖν, whereby the κοινὸς ἄρτος becomes the
ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριστίας. The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the
practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the
Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 65–67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116–118).
149 Justin lays special stress on this purpose. On the other hand, it is wanting in the Supper prayers of the
Didache, unless c. 9. 2 be regarded as an allusion to it.
150 The designation θυσία is first found in the Didache, c. 14.
174
pure sacrifice which is presented to the great king by Christians scattered over the world,
as they offer to him their prayers and place before him again what he has bestowed in order
to receive it back with thanks and praise. But there is no reference in this to the mysterious
words, that the bread and wine are the body of Christ broken and the blood of Christ shed
for the forgiveness of sin. These words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special
consideration. They called forth the recognition in the sacramental action, or rather in the
consecrated elements, of a mysterious communication of God, a gift of salvation, and this
212
is the second aspect. But on a purely spiritual conception of the Divine gift of salvation, the
blessings mediated through the Holy Supper could only be thought of as spiritual (faith,
knowledge, or eternal life), and the consecrated elements could only be recognised as the
mysterious vehicles of these blessings. There was yet no reflection on the distinction between
symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the vehicle, and vice versa. We shall
search in vain for any special relation of the partaking of the consecrated elements to the
forgiveness of sin. That was made impossible by the whole current notions of sin and for-
giveness. That on which value was put was the strengthening of faith and knowledge, as well
as the guarantee of eternal life; and a meal in which there was appropriated not merely
common bread and wine, but a τροφὴ πνευματική, seemed to have a bearing upon these.
There was as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought here moved in a
region bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of doing justice to the wonderful words
of institution which had been handed down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental
conviction that spiritual things can only be got by means of the Spirit.151 There was thus
151 The Supper was regarded as a “Sacrament” in so far as a blessing was represented in its holy food. The
conception of the nature of this blessing as set forth in John VI. 27-58, appears to have been the most common.
It may be traced back to Ignatius, ad Eph. 20. 2: ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες ὅς ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος
τοῦ μὴ ἀτοθανεῖν ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ παντός. Cf. Didache, 10. 3: ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν
καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον; also 10. 21: εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ὑπὲρ τῆς γνωσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας.
Justin Apol. I. 66: ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς ταύτης αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν (κατὰ μεταβολήν,
that is, the holy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our flesh; but what Justin has in view
here is most probably the body of the resurrection. The expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the sake
of the parallel to the incarnation). Iren. IV. 18. 5: V. 2. 2 f. As to how the elements are related to the body and
blood of Christ, Ignatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in several passages, especially
ad. Smyr. 7. 1: εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶνει τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν. But many passages shew that Ignatius
was far from such a conception, and rather thought as John did. In Trall. 8, faith is described as the flesh, and
love as the blood of Christ; in Rom. 7, in one breath the flesh of Christ is called the bread of God, and the blood
ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος. In Philad. 1, we read: αἷμα Ἰ Χρ. ἥτις ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰώνιος καὶ παράμονος. In Philad. 5, the
Gospel is called the flesh of Christ, etc. Hofling is therefore right in saying (Lehre v. Opfer, p. 39): “The
Eucharist is to Ignatius σάρξ of Christ, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine institution attesting the content of
175
attached to the Supper the idea of sacrifice, and of a sacred gift guaranteed by God. The two
things were held apart, for there is as yet no trace of that conception according to which the
body of Christ represented in the bread152 is the sacrifice offered by the community. But
213
one feels almost called upon here to construe from the premises the later development of
the idea, with due regard to the ancient Hellenic ideas of sacrifice.
3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation
which these involve, were not to be abolished in the Church, notwithstanding the independ- 214
ence and equality of every individual Christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every
relation of natural piety was to be respected. Therefore the elders also acquired a special
authority, and were to receive the utmost deference and due obedience. But, however im-
portant the organisation that was based on the distinction between πρεσβύτεροι and
νεώτεροι, it ought not to be considered as characteristic of the Churches, not even where
there appeared at the head of the community a college of chosen elders, as was the case in
the greater communities and, perhaps, soon everywhere. On the contrary, only an organisa-
πίστις, viz., belief in the σάρξ παθοῦσα, an institution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of
representing and preserving its unity in this belief.” On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that Justin (Apol.
I. 66) presupposed the identity, miraculously produced by the Logos, of the consecrated bread and the body he
had assumed. In this we have probably to recognise an influence on the conception of the Supper, of the miracle
represented in the Greek Mysteries: Οὐχ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅν τρόπον
διὰ λόγου θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεῖς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἱμα ὑπερ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν,
οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧι αἱμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν
τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα θδιδάχθημεν εἶναι (See Von Otto
on the passage). In the Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 117 ff., I have shewn that in the different Christian circles of
the second century, water and only water was often used in the Supper instead of wine, and that in many regions
this custom was maintained up to the middle of the third century (see Cypr. Ep. 63). I have endeavoured to
make it further probable that even Justin in his Apology describes a celebration of the Lord’s Supper with bread
and water. The latter has been contested by Zahn, “Bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, in the early Church,”
1892, and Jülicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahisfeier in der aeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f. Weiszäcker, 1892, p.
217 ff.).
152 Ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of Christ, but the concept “flesh of Christ” is for him itself a
spiritual one. On the contrary, Justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of Christ, but does not connect it with
the idea of sacrifice. They are thus both as yet far from the later conception. The numerous allegories which are
already attached to the Supper (one bread, equivalent to one community; many scattered grains bound up in
the one bread, equivalent to the Christians scattered abroad in the world, who are to be gathered together into
the Kingdom of God; one altar, equivalent to one assembly of the community, excluding private worship, etc.),
cannot as a group be adduced here.
176
tion founded on the gifts of the Spirit (χαρίσματα) bestowed on the Church by God,153
corresponded to the original peculiarity of the Christian community. The Apostolic age
therefore transmitted a twofold organi sation to the communities. The one was based on
the διακονία τοῦ λὸγου, and was regarded as established directly by God; the other stood
in the closest connection with the economy of the Church, above all with the offering of
gifts, and so with the sacrificial service. In the first were men speaking the word of God,
commissioned and endowed by God, and bestowed on Christendom, not on a particular
community, who as ἀπὸστολοι, προφῆται, and διδάσκαλοι had to spread the Gospel, that
is to edify the Church of Christ. The were regarded as the real ἡγούμενοι in the communities,
whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in faith. In the second were ἐπισκοποι,
and διάκονοι, appointed by the individual congregation and endowed with the charisms of
leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to perform the sacrificial
service (if there were no prophets present), and take charge of the affairs of the community.154
It lay in the nature of the case that as a rule the ἐπίσκοποι, as independent officials, were
chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen πρεσβύτεροι. But
a very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets
215
and teachers—as the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the Churches in the
world—fell more and more into the background, and their function, the solemn service of
the word, began to pass over to the officials of the community, the bishops, who already
played a great role in the public worship. At the same time, however, it appeared more and
more fitting to entrust one official, as chief leader (superintendent of public worship), with
the reception of gifts and their administration, together with the care of the unity of public
worship; that is, to appoint one bishop instead of a number of bishops, leaving, however,
as before, the college of presbyters, as προϊστάμενοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, a kind of senate of the
community.155 Moreover, the idea of the chosen bishops and deacons as the antitypes of
153 Cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition of the “Teaching of the Apostles” Chap. 5, (Texte
u. Unters. II. 1. 2). The numerous recent enquiries (Loening, Loofs, Réville etc.) will be found referred to in
Sohm’s Kirchenrecht. Vol. I. 1892, where the most exhaustive discussions are given.
154 That the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials connected with the cultus is most clearly seen from
1 Clem. 40-44, but also from the connection in which the 14th Chap. of the Didache stands with the 15th (see
the οὖν 15.1), to which Hatch in conversation called my attention. The φιλοξενία and the intercourse with
other communities (the fostering of the “unitas”) belonged, above all, to the affairs of the Church. Here, un-
doubtedly, from the beginning lay an important part of the bishop’s duties. Ramsay (“The Church in the Roman
Empire,” p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point exclusively, and therefore one-sidedly. According to him, the
monarchical Episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed ad hoc and for a time, for the purpose of
promoting intercourse with other churches.
155 Sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that the monarchical Episcopate originated in Rome
and is already presupposed by Hermas. I hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and I must also in
177
the Priests and Levites, had been formed at an early period in connection with the idea of
the new sacrifice. But we find also the idea, which is probably the earlier of the two, that the
prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the word, are the priests. The
hesitancy in applying this important allegory must have been brought to an end by the dis-
216
appearance of the latter view. But it must have been still more important that the bishops,
or bishop, in taking over the functions of the old λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον, who were not
Church officials, took over also the profound veneration with which they were regarded as
the special organs of the Spirit. But the condition of the organisation in the communities
about the year 140, seems to have been a very diverse one. Here and there, no doubt, the
convenient arrangement of appointing only one bishop was carried out, while his functions
had not perhaps been essentially increased, and the prophets and teachers were still the
great spokesmen. Conversely, there may still have been in other communities a number of
bishops, while the prophets and teachers no longer played regularly an important role. A
fixed organisation was reached, and the Apostolic episcopal constitution established, only
in consequence of the so-called Gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in every respect.
One of its most important presuppositions, and one that has struck very deep into the de-
velopment of doctrine must, however, be borne in mind here. As the Churches traced back
all the laws according to which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the tra-
dition of the twelve Apostles, because they regarded them as Christian only on that presup-
position, they also in like manner, as far as we can discover, traced back their organisation
of presbyters, i.e., of bishops and deacons, to Apostolic appointment. The notion which
followed quite naturally, was that the Apostles themselves had appointed the first church
officials.156 That idea may have found support in some actual cases of the kind, but this
does not need to be considered here; for these cases would not have led to the setting up of
a theory. But the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing else than an integral
part of the general theory, that the twelve Apostles were in every respect the middle term
between Jesus and the present Churches (see above, p. 158). This conception is earlier than
the great Gnostic crisis, for the Gnostics also shared it. But no special qualities of the officials,
217
but only of the Church itself, were derived from it, and it was believed that the independence
great part reject the bold statements which are fastened on to the first Epistle of Clement. They may be compre-
hended in the proposition which Sohm, p. 158, has placed at the head of his discussion of the Epistle. “The first
Epistle of Clement makes an epoch in the history of the organisation of the Church. It was destined to put an
end to the early Christian constitution of the Church.” According to Sohm (p. 165), another immediate result
of the Epistle was a change of constitution in the Romish Church, the introduction of the monarchical Episcopate.
That, however, can only be asserted, not proved; for the proof which Sohm has endeavoured to bring from Ig-
natius’ Epistle to the Romans and the Shepherd of Hermas, is not convincing.
156 See, above all, 1 Clem. 42, 44, Acts of the Apostles, Pastoral Epistles, etc.
178
and sovereignty of the Churches were in no way endangered by it, because an institution
by Apostles was considered equivalent to an institution by the Holy Spirit, whom they pos-
sessed and whom they followed. The independence of the Churches rested precisely on the
fact that they had the Spirit in their midst. The conception here briefly sketched was com-
pletely transformed in the following period by the addition of another idea—that of
Apostolic succession,157 and then became, together with the idea of the specific priesthood
of the leader of the Church, the most important means of exalting the office above the
community.158
Supplementary.
This review of the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge, worship and organ- 218
isation in the earliest Gentile Christianity will have shewn that the essential premises for
the development of Catholicism were already in existence before the middle of the second
century, and before the burning conflict with Gnosticism. We may see this, whether we look
at the peculiar form of the Kerygma, or at the expression of the idea of tradition, or at the
theology with its moral and philosophic attitude. We may therefore conclude that the struggle
with Gnosticism hastened the development, but did not give it a new direction. For the
Greek spirit, the element which was most operative in Gnosticism, was already concealed
in the earliest Gentile Christianity itself; it was the atmosphere which one breathed; but the
elements peculiar to Gnosticism were for the most part rejected.159 We may even go back
157 This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap 11. C.

158 We must remember here that besides the teachers, elders and deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, cel-
ibates, abstinentes) and the martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the Churches, and frequently laid
hold of the government and leading of them. Hermas enjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors
higher than the presbyters (Vis. III. 1. 2). The widows were soon entrusted with diaconal tasks connected with
the worship, and received a corresponding respect. As to the limits of this, there was, as we can gather from
different passages, much disagreement. One statement in Tertullian shews that the confessors had special claims
to be considered in the choice of a bishop (adv. Valent. 4: “Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio
poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii prærogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ
abrupit“). This statement is strengthened by other passages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11: “Hoc sentire et facere omnem
servum dei oportet, etiam minor’s loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si quern gradum in persecutionis tolerantia
ascenderit”; see Hippol. in the Arab. canons, and also Achelis, Texte u. Unters. VI. 4. pp. 67, 220: Cypr. Epp. 38.
39. The way in which confessors and ascetics, from the end of the second century, attempted to have their say
in the leading of the Churches, and the respectful way in which it was sought to set their claims aside, shew that
a special relation to the Lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the community, was early acknowledged
to these people, on account of their archievements. On the transition of the old prophets and teachers into
wandering ascetics, later into monks, see the Syriac Pseudo-Clementine Epistles, “de virginitate,” and my
Abhandl. i. d. Sitzungsberichten d. K. Pr. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff.
159 See Weizsäcker. Gött. Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose statements I can almost entirely make my own.
179
a step further (see above, pp. 41, 76). The great Apostle to the Gentiles himself, in his epistle
to the Romans and in those to the Corinthians, transplanted the Gospel into Greek modes
of thought. He attempted to expound it with Greek ideas, and not only called the Greeks to
the Old Testament and the Gospel, but also introduced the Gospel as a leaven into the reli-
gious and philosophic world of Greek ideas. Moreover, in his pneumatico-cosmic Christology
he gave the Greeks an impulse towards a theologoumenon, at whose service they could place
their whole philosophy and mysticism. He preached the foolishness of Christ crucified, and
yet in doing so proclaimed the wisdom of the nature-vanquishing Spirit, the heavenly Christ.
From this moment was established a development which might indeed assume very different
forms, but in which all the forces and ideas of Hellenism must gradually pass over to the
Gospel. But even with this the last word has not been said; on the contrary, we must remem-
ber that the Gospel itself belonged to the fulness of the times, which is indicated by the inter-
action of the Old Testament and the Hellenic religions (see above, pp. 41, 56).
The documents which have been preserved from the first century of the Gentile Church
219
are, in their relation to the history of Dogma, very diverse. In the Didache we have a Catech-
ism for Christian life dependent on a Jewish Greek Catechism, and giving expression to
what was specifically Christian in the prayers and in the order of the Church. The Epistle
of Barnabas, probably of Alexandrian origin, teaches the correct, Christian, interpretation
of the Old Testament, rejects the literal interpretation and Judaism as of the devil, and in
Christology essentially follows Paul. The Romish first Epistle of Clement, which also contains
other Pauline reminiscences (reconciliation and justification), represents the same Christo-
logy, but it set it in a moralistic mode of thought. This is a most typical writing in which the
spirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal ecclesiastical guardianship of Rome is
already expressed. The moralistic mode of thought is classically represented by the Shepherd
of Hermas and the second Epistle of Clement, in which, besides, the eschatological element
is very prominent. We have in the Shepherd the most important document for the Church
Christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a prophet who, however, takes into account
the concrete relations. The theology of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as he, opposing
the Gnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs his Gnosis not
so much to the Old Testament as to the history of Christ. He attempts to make Christ κατὰ
τνεῦμα and κατὰ σάρκα the central point of Christianity. In this sense his theology and
speech is Christocentric, related to that of Paul and the fourth Evangelist, (specially striking
is the relationship with Ephesians,) and is strongly contrasted with that of his contemporaries.
Of kindred spirit with him are Melito and Irenæus, whose forerunner he is. He is related to
them as Methodius at a later period was related to the classical orthodox theology of the
fourth and fifth centuries. This parallel is appropriate not merely in point of form: it is rather
180
one and the same tendency of mind which passes over from Ignatius to Melito, Irenæus,
Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here, however, mixed with Origenic elements),
and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is that not only does the person of Christ as the
220
God-man form the central point and sphere of theology, but also that all the main points
of his history are mysteries of the world’s redemption. (Ephes. 19). But Ignatius is also dis-
tinguished by the fact that behind all that is enthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt, and again all that
pertains to liturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to Christ (ὁ θεός μου). He
is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6: ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ, τὸν ὑπερ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα, ἐκεῖνον
θέλω, τὸν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀναστάντα; Rom. 7: ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ πῦρ
φιλοϋλον. As a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad Smyrn. I: ἐνόησα
ὑμᾶς κατηρτισμένους ἐν ἀκινήτῳ πίστει, ὥσπερ καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυριοῦ
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύμαρι καὶ ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῶ αἵμαρι Χριστοῦ,
πεπληροφορημένους εἰς τὸν κυρίου ἡμῶν, ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ γένους Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, ὑιὸν
θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ, γεγενημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου, βεβαπτισμένον
ὑπὸ Ἰωάννοῦ, ἵνα πληρωθῇ πᾶσα δικαιοσύνη ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀληθῶς ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ
Ἡρώδου τετράρχου καθηλωμένον ὑπέρ ἡμῶν ἐν σαρκί—ἀφ᾽ οὗ καρποῦ ἡμεῖς, ἀπὸ τοῦ
θεομακαρίτου αὐτοῦ πάθους—ἵνα ἄρῃ σύσσημον εἰς τούς αἰῶνας διά τῆς ἀναστάσεως εἰς
τούς ἀγίους καὶ πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰτ́ ε ἐν Ἰουδαίοις εἰτ́ ε ἐν ἰθ́ νεσιν ἐν ἑνὶ σώματη τῆς ἐκκλησίας
αὐτοῦ. The Epistle of Polycarp is characterised by its dependence on earlier Christian writings
(Epistles of Paul, I Peter, I John), consequently by its conservative attitude with regard to
the most valuable traditions of the Apostolic period. The Kerygma of Peter exhibits the
transition from the early Christian literature to the apologetic (Christ as νὸμος and as λόγος).
It is manifest that the lineage, “Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenæus,” is in characteristic
contrast with all others, has deep roots in the Apostolic age, as in Paul and in the Johannine
writings, and contains in germ important factors of the future formation of dogma, as it
appeared in Methodius, Athanasius, Marcellus, Cyril of Jerusalem. It is very doubtful,
therefore, whether we are justified in speaking of an Asia Minor theology. (Ignatius does
not belong to Asia Minor.) At any rate, the expression, Asia Minor-Romish Theology, has
no justification. But it has its truth in the correct observation, that the standards by which
221
Christianity and Church matters were measured and defined must have been similar in
Rome and Asia Minor during the second century. We lack all knowledge of the closer con-
nections. We can only again refer to the journey of Polycarp to Rome, to that of Irenæus by
Rome to Gaul, to the journey of Abercius and others. (Cf. also the application of the
Montanist communities in Asia Minor for recognition by the Roman bishop.) In all prob-
ability, Asia Minor, along with Rome, was the spiritual centre of Christendom from about
60-200; but we have but few means for describing how this centre was brought to bear on
the circumference. What we do know belongs more to the history of the Church than to
the special history of dogma.
181
Literature.—The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v.

Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit.
1884, has collected further remains of early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve
Apostles. Fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also the
writings of Justin and other apologists, in so far as they give disclosures about the faith of
the communities of his time, as well as statements in Celsus Ἀληθὴς Λόγος, in Irenæus,
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments may be cautiously turned
to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2 Aufl. 1857. Pfleiderer, Das Urchrist-
enthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity, vol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum
Justin’s, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch.
des N.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der Apostolischen
Väter (Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner, History of the doctrine of the Person
of Christ, 1845. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff: Höfling, Die
Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, 1851, Höfling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848. Kahnis,
Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche Gemeindegottedienst im
Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Pro-
legomena to the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der
222
Christl. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892. Monographs on the Apostolic Fathers: on
1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate commentary), Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack
(Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887); on Barnabas: J. Müller; on Hermas: Zahn, Hückstädt, Link; on
Papias: Weiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and Polycarp: Lightfoot (ac-
curate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: A. Harnack; on the
Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschütz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.
223
182
Chapter IV. The Attempts of the Gnostics to Create an Apostolic Dogmatic,…
CHAPTER IV
THE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC

DOGMATIC, AND A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; OR, THE ACUTE
SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY.
§ I. The Conditions for the Rise of Gnosticism.
The Christian communities were originally unions for a holy life on the ground of a
common hope, which rested on the belief that the God who has spoken by the Prophets has
sent his Son Jesus Christ, and through him revealed eternal life, and will shortly make it
manifest. Christianity had its roots in certain facts and utterances, and the foundation of
the Christian union was the common hope, the holy life in the Spirit according to the law
of God, and the holding fast to those facts and utterances. There was, as the foregoing chapter
will have shewn, no fixed Didache beyond that.160 There was abundance of fancies, ideas,
and knowledge, but these had not yet the value of being the religion itself. Yet the belief that
Christianity guarantees the perfect knowledge, and leads from one degree of clearness to
another, was in operation from the very beginning. This conviction had to be immediately
tested by the Old Testament, that is, the task was imposed on the majority of thinking
Christians, by the circumstances in which the Gospel had been proclaimed to them, of
making the Old Testament intelligible to themselves, in other words, of using this book as
a Christian book, and of finding the means by which they might be able to repel the Jewish
claim to it, and refute the Jewish interpretation of it. This task would not have been imposed,
224
far less solved, if the Christian communities in the Empire had not entered into the inherit-
ance of the Jewish propaganda, which had al-ready been greatly influenced by foreign reli-
gions (Babylonian and Persian, see the Jewish Apocalypses), and in which an extensive
spiritualising of the Old Testament religion had already taken place. This spiritualising was
the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome of a
lasting influence of Greek philosophy and of the Greek spirit generally on Judaism. In con-
sequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the Old Testament in which one could not
find his way were allegorised. “Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of
something invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here sublimated to a history of
the emancipation of reason from passion.” It describes, however, the beginning of the his-
torical development of Christianity, that as soon as it wished to give account of itself, or to
turn to advantage the documents of revelations which were in its possession, it had to adopt
the methods of that fantastic syncretism. We have seen above that those writers who made
160 We may consider here once more the articles which are embraced in the first ten chapters of the recently
discovered Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων, after enumerating and describing which, the author continues (11. 1): ὃς
ἃν οὖν ἐλθών διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα, δέξασθε αὐτόν.
183
a diligent use of the Old Testament had no hesitation in making use of the allegorical
method. That was required not only by the inability to understand the verbal sense of the
Old Testament, presenting diverging moral and religious opinions, but, above all, by the
conviction that on every page of that book Christ and the Christian Church must be found.
How could this conviction have been maintained unless the definite concrete meaning of
the documents had been already obliterated by the Jewish philosophic view of the Old
Testament?
This necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the communities an
intellectual philosophic element, γνώσις, which was perfectly distinct from the Apocalyptic
dreams, in which were beheld angel hosts on white horses, Christ with eyes as a flame of
fire, hellish beasts, conflict and victory.”161 In this γνώσις, which attached itself to the Old
Testament, many began to see the specific blessing which was promised to mature faith,
and through which it was to attain perfection. What a wealth of relations, hints, and intuitions
225
seemed to disclose itself, as soon as the Old Testament was considered allegorically, and to
what extent had the way been prepared here by the Jewish philosophic teachers! From the
simple narratives of the Old Testament had already been developed a theosophy, in which
the most abstract ideas had acquired reality, and from which sounded forth the Hellenic
canticle of the power of the Spirit over matter and sensuality, and of the true home of the
soul. Whatever in this great adaptation still remained obscure and unnoticed, was now
lighted up by the history of Jesus, his birth, his life, his sufferings and triumph. The view of
the Old Testament as a document of the deepest wisdom, transmitted to those who knew
how to read it as such, unfettered the intellectual interest which would not rest until it had
entirely transferred the new religion from the world of feelings, actions and hopes, into the
world of Hellenic conceptions, and transformed it into a metaphysic. In that exposition of
the Old Testament which we find, for example, in the so-called Barnabas, there is already
concealed an important philosophic, Hellenic element, and in that sermon which bears the
name of Clement (the so-called second Epistle of Clement), conceptions such as that of the
Church, have already assumed a bodily form and been joined in marvellous connections,
while, on the contrary, things concrete have been transformed into things invisible.
161 It is a good tradition which designates the so-called Gnosticism simply as Gnosis, and yet uses this word
also for the speculations of non Gnostic teachers of antiquity (e.g., of Barnabas). But the inferences which follow
have not been drawn. Origen says truly (c. Celsus III. 12): “As men, not only the labouring and serving classes,
but also many from the cultured classes of Greece, came to see something honourable in Christianity, sects could
not fail to arise, not simply from the desire for controversy and contradiction, but because several scholars en-
deavoured to penetrate deeper into the truth of Christianity. In this way sects arose which received their names
from men who indeed admired Christianity in its essence, but from many different causes had arrived at different
conceptions of it.”
184
But once the intellectual interest was unfettered, and the new religion had approximated
to the Hellenic spirit by means of a philosophic view of the Old Testament, how could that 226
spirit be prevented from taking complete and immediate possession of it, and where, in the
first instance, could the power be found that was able to decide whether this or that opinion
was incompatible with Christianity? This Christianity, as it was, unequivocally excluded all
polytheism, and all national religions existing in the Empire. It opposed to them the one
God, the Saviour Jesus, and a spiritual worship of God. But at the same time it summoned
all thoughtful men to knowledge by declaring itself to be the only true religion, while it ap-
peared to be only a variety of Judaism. It seemed to put no limits to the character and extent
of the knowledge, least of all to such knowledge as was able to allow all that was transmitted
to remain, and at the same time abolish it by transforming it into mysterious symbols. That
really was the method which every one must and did apply who wished to get from Chris-
tianity more than practical motives and super earthly hopes. But where was the limit of the
application? Was not the next step to see in the Evangelic records also new material for
spiritual interpretations, and to illustrate from the narratives there, as from the Old Testa-
ment, the conflict of the spirit with matter, of reason with sensuality? Was not the conception,
that the traditional deeds of Christ were really the last act in the struggle of those mighty
spiritual powers whose conflict is delineated in the Old Testament, at least as evident as the
other, that those deeds were the fulfilment of mysterious promises? Was it not in keeping
with the consciousness possessed by the new religion of being the universal religion, that
one should not be satisfied with mere beginnings of a new knowledge, or with fragments of
it, but should seek to set up such knowledge in a complete and systematic form, and so to
exhibit the best and universal system of life as also the best and universal system of knowledge
of the world? Finally, did not the free and yet so rigid forms in which the Christian com-
munities were organised, the union of the mysterious with a wonderful publicity, of the
spiritual with significant rites (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), invite men to find here the
realisation of the ideal which the Hellenic religious spirit was at that time seeking, viz., a
communion which, in virtue of a Divine revelation, is in possession of the highest knowledge,
227
and therefore leads the holiest life; a communion which does not communicate the knowledge
by discourse, but by mysterious efficacious consecrations and by revealed dogmas? These
questions are thrown out here in accordance with the direction which the historical progress
of Christianity took. The phenomenon called Gnosticism gives the answer to them.162
162 The majority of Christians in the second century belonged no doubt to the uncultured classes and did not
seek abstract knowledge, nay, were distrustful of it; see the λόγος ἀληθής of Celsus, especially III. 44, and the
writings of the Apologists. Yet we may infer from the treatise of Origen against Celsus, that the number of
“Christiani rudes” who cut themselves off from theological and philosophic knowledge, was about the year 240
a very large one; and Tertullian says (Adv. Prax. 3): “Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ
185
§ 2. The Nature of Gnosticism.

The Catholic Church afterwards claimed as her own those writers of the first century
(60-160) who were content with turning speculation to account only as a means of spiritu-
alising the Old Testament, without, however, attempting a systematic reconstruction of
tradition. But all those who in the first century undertook to furnish Christian practice with
the foundation of a complete systematic knowledge, she declared false Christians, Christians
only in name. Historical enquiry cannot accept this judgment. On the contrary, it sees in
Gnosticism a series of undertakings, which in a certain way is analogous to the Catholic
embodiment of Christianity, in doctrine, morals, and worship. The great distinction here
consists essentially in the fact that the Gnostic systems represent the acute secularising or
hellenising of Christianity, with the rejection of the Old Testament;163 while the Catholic
system, on the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with the conserva-
tion of the Old Testament. The traditional religion on being, as it were, suddenly required
to recognise itself in a picture foreign to it, was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture;
228
but to the gradual, and one might say indulgent remodelling to which it was subjected, it
offered but little resistance, nay, as a rule, it was never conscious of it. It is therefore no
paradox to say that Gnosticism, which is just Hellenism, has in Catholicism obtained half
a victory. We have, at Ieast, the same justification for that assertion—the parallel may be
permitted—as we have for recognising a triumph of 18th century ideas in the first Empire,
and a continuance, though with reservations, of the old regime.
From this point of view the position to be assigned to the Gnostics in the history of
dogma, which has hitherto been always misunderstood, is obvious. They were, in short, the
Theologians of the first century.164 They were the first to transform Christianity into a system
of doctrines (dogmas). They were the first to work up tradition systematically. They under-
took to present Christianity as the absolute religion, and therefore placed it in definite op-
major semper credentium pars est,” cf. de jejun. 11: “Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem
psychicorum.”
163 Overbeck (Stud. z. Gesch. d. alten Kirche. p. 184) has the merit of having first given convincing expression
to this view of Gnosticism.
164 The ability of the prominent Gnostic teachers has been recognised by the Church Fathers: see Hieron.
Comm. in Osee. II. to, Opp. VI. 1: “Nullus potest hæresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona
naturæ quæ a deo artifice sunt creata: talis fait Valentinus, talis Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis
Bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium.” It is still more important to see how the Alexandrian
theologians (Clement and Origen) estimated the exegetic labours of the Gnostics and took account of them.
Origen undoubtedly recognised Herakleon as a prominent exegete, and treats him most respectfully even where
he feels compelled to differ from him. All Gnostics cannot, of course, be regarded as theologians. In their totality
they form the Greek society with a Christian name.
186
position to the other religions, even to Judaism. But to them the absolute religion, viewed
in its contents, was identical with the result of the philosophy of religion for which the
support of a revelation was to be sought. They are therefore those Christians who, in a swift
advance, attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenic culture, and Hellenic culture for
Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the
covenant between the two powers, and make it possible to assert the absoluteness of Chris-
tianity.—But the significance of the Old Testament in the religious history of the world lies
just in this, that, in order to be maintained at all, it required the application of the allegoric
229
method, that is, a definite proportion of Greek ideas, and that, on the other hand, it opposed
the strongest barrier to the complete hellenising of Christianity. Neither the sayings of Jesus,
nor Christian hopes, were at first capable of forming such a barrier. If, now, the majority of
Gnostics could make the attempt to disregard the Old Testament, that is a proof that, in
wide circles of Christendom, people were at first satisfied with an abbreviated form of the
Gospel, containing the preaching of the one God, of the resurrection and of continence,—a
law and an ideal of practical life.165 In this form, as it was realised in life, the Christianity
which dispensed with “doctrines” seemed capable of union with every form of thoughtful
and earnest philosophy, because the Jewish foundation did not make its appearance here
at all. But the majority of Gnostic undertakings may also be viewed as attempts to transform
Christianity into a theosophy, that is, into a revealed metaphysic and philosophy of history,
with a complete disregard of the Jewish Old Testament soil on which it originated, through
the use of Pauline ideas,166 and under the influence of the Platonic spirit. Moreover, com-
parison is possible between writers such as Barnabas and Ignatius, and the so-called Gnostics,
to the effect of making the latter appear in possession of a completed theory, to which frag-
mentary ideas in the former exhibit a striking affinity.
We have hitherto tacitly presupposed that in Gnosticism the Hellenic spirit desired to
make itself master of Christianity, or more correctly of the Christian communities. This
conception may be, and really is still contested. For according to the accounts of later op-
ponents, and on these we are almost exclusively dependent here, the main thing with the
Gnostics seems to have been the reproduction of Asiatic Mythologoumena of all kinds, so
that we should rather have to see in Gnosticism a union of Christianity with the most remote
Oriental cults and their wisdom. But with regard to the most important Gnostic systems
the words hold true, “The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.”
230
There can be no doubt of the fact, that the Gnosticism which has become a factor in the
movement of the history of dogma, was ruled in the main by the Greek spirit, and determined
165 Otherwise the rise of Gnosticism cannot at all be explained.

166 Cf. Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” p. 83: “Gnosticism was in one respect distorted Paulin-
ism”
187
by the interests and doctrines of the Greek philosophy of religion,167 which doubtless had
already assumed a syncretistic character. This fact is certainly concealed by the circumstance
that the material of the speculations was taken now from this, and now from that Oriental
religious philosophy, from astrology and the Semitic cosmologies. But that is only in keeping
with the stage which the religious development had reached among the Greeks and Romans
of that time.168 The cultured, and these primarily come into consideration here, no longer
had a religion in the sense of a national religion, but a philosophy of religion. They were,
however, in search of a religion, that is, a firm basis for the results of their speculations, and
they hoped to obtain it by turning themselves towards the very old Oriental cults, and
seeking to fill them with the religious and moral knowledge which had been gained by the
Schools of Plato and of Zeno. The union of the traditions and rites of the Oriental religions,
viewed as mysteries, with the spirit of Greek philosophy is the characteristic of the epoch.
The needs, which asserted themselves with equal strength, of a complete knowledge of the
All, of a spiritual God, a sure and therefore very old revelation, atonement and immortality,
were thus to be satisfied at one and the same time. The most sublimated spiritualism enters
here into the strangest union with a crass superstition based on Oriental cults. This super-
231
stition was supposed to insure and communicate the spiritual blessings. These complicated
tendencies now entered into Christianity.
We have accordingly to ascertain and distinguish in the prominent Gnostic schools,
which, in the second century on Greek soil, became an important factor in the history of
the Church, the Semitic-cosmological foundations, the Hellenic philosophic mode of thought,
and the recognition of the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ. Further, we have to take
note of the three elements of Gnosticism, viz., the speculative and philosophical, the mystic
element connection with worship, and the practical, ascetic. The close connection in which
these three elements appear,169 the total transformation of all ethical into cosmological
167 Joel, “Blick in die Religionsgesch.” Vol I. pp. 101-170, has justly emphasised the Greek character of
Gnosis, and insisted on the significance of Platonism for it. “The Oriental element did not always in the case of
the Gnostics originate at first hand, but had already passed through a Greek channel.”
168 The age of the Antonines was the flourishing period of Gnosticism. Marquardt (Römische Staatsverwaltung,
vol. 3, p. 81) says of this age: “With the Antonines begins the last period of the Roman religious development,
in which two new elements enter into it. These are the Syrian and Persian deities, whose worship at this time
was prevalent not only in the city of Rome, but in the whole empire, and at the same time Christianity, which
entered into conflict with all ancient tradition, and in this conflict exercised a certain influence even on the
Oriental forms of worship.
169 It is a special merit of Weingarten (Histor. Ztschr. Bd. 45. 1881. p. 441 f.) and Koffmane (De Gnosis nach
ihrer Tendenz und Organisation, 1881) to have strongly emphasised the mystery character of Gnosis, and in
connection with that, its practical aims. Koffmane, especially, has collected abundant material for proving that
the tendency of the Gnostics was the same as that of the ancient mysteries, and that they thence borrowed their
188
problems, the upbuilding of a philosophy of God and the world on the basis of a combination
of popular Mythologies, physical observations belonging to the Oriental (Babylonian) reli-
gious philosophy, and historical events, as well as the idea that the history of religion is the
last act in the drama-like history of the Cosmos—all this is not peculiar to Gnosticism, but
rather corresponds to a definite stage of the general development. It may, however, be asserted
that Gnosticism anticipated the general development, and that not only with regard to
Catholicism, but also with regard to Neoplatonism, which represents the last stage in the
inner history of Hellenism.170 The Valentinians have already got as far as Jamblichus. The
232
name Gnosis, Gnostics, describes excellently the aims of Gnosticism, in so far as its adherents
boasted of the absolute knowledge, and faith in the Gospel was transformed into a knowledge
of God, nature and history. This knowledge, however, was not regarded as natural, but in
the view of the Gnostics was based on revelation, was communicated and guaranteed by
holy consecrations, and was accordingly cultivated by reflection supported by fancy. A
mythology of ideas was created out of the sensuous mythology of any Oriental religion, by
the conversion of concrete forms into speculative and moral ideas, such as “Abyss,” “Silence,”
“Logos,” “Wisdom,” “Life,” while the mutual relation and number of these abstract ideas
were determined by the data supplied by the corresponding concretes. Thus arose a philo-
sophic dramatic poem similar to the Platonic, but much more complicated, and therefore
more fantastic, in which mighty powers, the spiritual and good, appear in an unholy union
with the material and wicked, but from which the spiritual is finally delivered by the aid of
those kindred powers which are too exalted to be ever drawn down into the common. The
good and heavenly which has been drawn down into the material, and therefore really non-
existing, is the human spirit, and the exalted power who delivers it is Christ. The Evangelic
history as handed down is not the history of Christ, but a collection of allegoric representa-
organisation and discipline. This fact proves the proposition that Gnosticism was an acute hellenising of
Christianity. Koffmane has, however, undervalued the union of the practical and speculative tendency in the
Gnostics, and, in the effort to obtain recognition for the mystery character of the Gnostic communities, has
overlooked the fact that they were also schools. The union of mystery-cultus and school is just, however, their
characteristic. In this also they prove themselves the forerunners of Neoplatonism and the Catholic Church.
Moehler in his programme of 1831 (Urspr. d. Gnosticismus Tübingen), vigorously emphasised the practical
tendency of Gnosticism, though not in a convincing way. Hackenschmidt (Anfänge des katholischen Kirchen-
begriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged correctly.
170 We have also evidence of the methods by which ecstatic visions were obtained among the Gnostics: see
the Pistis Sophia, and the important role which prophets and Apocalypses played in several important Gnostic
communities (Barcoph and Barcabbas, prophets of the Basilideans; Martiades and Marsanes among the Ophites;
Philumene in the case of Apelles; Valentinian prophecies; Apocalypses of Zostrian, Zoroaster, etc.). Apocalypses
were also used by some under the names of Old Testament men of God and Apostles.
189
tions of the great history of God and the world. Christ has really no history. His appearance
in this world of mixture and confusion is his deed, and the enlightenment of the spirit about
itself is the result which springs out of that deed. This enlightenment itself is life. But the
enlightenment is dependent on revelation, asceticism and surrender to those mysteries
which Christ founded, in which one enters into præsens numen and which in mysterious
233
ways promote the process of raising the spirit above the sensual. This rising above the sen-
sual is, however, to be actively practised. Abstinence therefore, as a rule, is the watchword.
Christianity thus appears here as a speculative philosophy which redeems the spirit by en-
lightening it, consecrating it, and instructing it in the right conduct of life. The Gnosis is
free from the rationalistic interest in the sense of natural religion. Because the riddles about
the world which it desires to solve are not properly intellectual, but practical, because it desires
to be in the end γνῶσις σωτηρίας, it removes into the region of the supra-rational the powers
which are supposed to confer vigour and life on the human spirit. Only a μάθησις, however,
united with μυσταγωγία resting on revelation leads thither, not an exact philosophy.
Gnosis starts from the great problem of this world, but occupies itself with a higher world,
and does not wish to be an exact philosophy, but a philosophy of religion. Its fundamental
philosophic doctrines are the following: (1) The indefinable, infinite nature of the Divine
primeval Being exalted above all thought. (2) Matter as opposed to the Divine Being, and
therefore having no real being, the ground of evil. (3) The fulness of divine potencies, sons,
which are thought of partly as powers, partly as real ideas, partly as relatively independent
beings, presenting in gradation the unfolding and revelation of the Godhead, but at the
same time rendering possible the transition of the higher to the lower. (4) The Cosmos as
a mixture of matter with divine sparks, which has arisen from a descent of the latter into
the former, or, as some say, from the perverse, or at least merely permitted undertaking of
a subordinate spirit. The Demiurge, therefore, is an evil, intermediate, or weak, but penitent
being; the best thing therefore in the world is aspiration. (5) The deliverance of the spiritual
element from its union with matter, or the separation of the good from the world of sensu-
ality by the Spirit of Christ which operates through knowledge, asceticism, and holy consec-
ration: thus originates the perfect Gnostic, the man who is free from the world, and master
of himself, who lives in God and prepares himself for eternity. All these are ideas for which
234
we find the way prepared in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by Philo, and represented
in Neoplatonism as the great final result of Greek philosophy. It lies in the nature of the
case that only some men are able to appropriate the Christianity that is comprehended in
these ideas, viz., just as many as are capable of entering into this kind of Christianity, those
who are spiritual. The others must be considered as non-partakers of the Spirit from the
beginning, and therefore excluded from knowledge as the profanum vulgus. Yet some—the
Valentinians, for example—made a distinction in this vulgus, which can only be discussed
190
later on, because it is connected with the position of the Gnostics towards Jewish Christian
tradition.
The later opponents of Gnosticism preferred to bring out the fantastic details of the
Gnostic systems, and thereby created the prejudice that the essence of the matter lay in
these. They have thus occasioned modern expounders to speculate about the Gnostic spec-
ulations in a manner that is marked by still greater strangeness. Four observations shew
how unhistorical and unjust such a view is, at least with regard to the chief systems. (1) The
great Gnostic schools, wherever they could, sought to spread their opinions. But it is simply
incredible that they should have expected of all their disciples, male and female, an accurate
knowledge of the details of their system. On the contrary, it may be shewn that they often
contented themselves with imparting consecration, with regulating the practical life of their
adherents, and instructing them in the general features of their system.171 (2) We see how
in one and the same school—for example, the Valentinian—the details of the religious
metaphysic were very various and changing. (3) We hear but little of conflicts between the
various schools. On the contrary, we learn that the books of doctrine and edification passed
from one school to another.172 (4) The fragments of Gnostic writings which have been
preserved, and this is the most important consideration of the four, shew that the Gnostics
devoted their main strength to the working out of those religious, moral, philosophical and
historical problems which must engage the thoughtful of all times.173 We only need to read
235
171 See Koffmane, beforementioned work, p. 5 f.

172 See Fragm. Murat. V. 81 f.; Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 108; Orig. Hom. 34. The Marcionite Antitheses were
probably spread among other Gnostic sects. The Fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the Gnostics were
united against the Church: Tertullian de præscr. 42: “Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hæreticos fere non sunt,
quia cum Sint, non parent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa.” They certainly also delight in emphasising the contra-
dictions of the different schools; but they cannot point to any earnest conflict of these schools with each other.
We know definitely that Bardasanes argued against the earlier Gnostics, and Ptolemæus against Marcion.
173 See the collection, certainly not complete, of Gnostic fragments by Grabe (Spicileg.) and Hilgenfeld
(Ketzergeschichte). Our books on the history of Gnosticism take far too little notice of these fragments as
presented to us, above all, by Clement and Origen, and prefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the Fathers
about the “Systems,” (better in Heinrici: Valent. Gnosis, 1871). The vigorous efforts of the Gnostics to understand
the Pauline and Johannine ideas, and their in part surprisingly rational and ingenious solutions of intellectual
problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. Who would guess, for example, from what is currently
known of the system of Basilides, that, according to Clement, the following proceeds from him, (Strom. IV. 12.
18): ὡς αὐτός φησιν ὁ Βασιλείδης, ἑν
̀ μέρος ἐκ τοῦ λεγομένου θελήματος τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπειλήφαμεν, τὸ ἡγαπηκέναι
ἅπαντα. ὅτι λόγον ἀποσώζουσι πρὸς τὸ πᾶν ἅπαντα· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ μηδενὸς ἐπιθυμεῖν, καὶ τὸ τρίτον μισείν μηδὲ
ἕν? and where do we find, in the period before Clement of Alexandria, faith in Christ united with such spiritual
maturity and inner freedom as in Valentinus, Ptolemæus and Heracleon?
191
some actual Gnostic document, such as the Epistle of Ptolemæus to Flora, or certain para-
graphs of the Pistis Sophia, in order to see that the fantastic details of the philosophic poem
can only, in the case of the Gnostics themselves, have had the value of liturgical apparatus,
the construction of which was not of course matter of indifference, but hardly formed the
principle interest. The things to be proved and to be confirmed by the aid of this or that
very old religious philosophy, were certain religious and moral fundamental convictions,
and a correct conception of God, of the sensible, of the creator of the world, of Christ, of
the Old Testament, and the evangelic tradition. Here were actual dogmas. But how the grand
fantastic union of all the factors was to be brought about, was, as the Valentinian school
shews, a problem whose solution was ever and again subjected to new attempts.174 No one
to-day can in all respects distinguish what to those thinkers was image and what reality, or
236
in what degree they were at all able to distinguish image from reality, and in how far the
magic formulæ of their mysteries were really objects of their meditation. But the final aim
of their endeavours, the faith and knowledge of their own hearts which they instilled into
their disciples, the practical rules which they wished to give them, and the view of Christ
which they wished to confirm them in, stand out with perfect clearness. Like Plato, they
made their explanation of the world start from the contradiction between sense and reason,
which the thoughtful man observes in himself. The cheerful asceticism, the powers of the
spiritual and the good which were seen in the Christian communities, attracted them and
seemed to require the addition of theory to practice. Theory without being followed by
practice had long been in existence, but here was the as yet rare phenomenon of a moral
practice which seemed to dispense with that which was regarded as indispensable, viz.,
theory. The philosophic life was already there; how could the philosophic doctrine be
wanting, and after what other model could the latent doctrine be reproduced than that of
the Greek religious philosophy?175 That the Hellenic spirit in Gnosticism turned with such
eagerness to the Christian communities and was ready even to believe in Christ in order to
appropriate the moral powers which it saw operative in them, is a convincing proof of the
237
174 Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the difference between the solution of Valentinus, for ex-
ample, and his disciple Ptolemæus. “Ptolemæus nomina et numeros Æonum distinxit in personales substantias,
sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.”
It is, moreover, important that Tertullian himself should distinguish this so clearly.
175 There is nothing here more instructive than to hear the judgments of the cultured Greeks and Romans
about Christianity, as soon as they have given up the current gross prejudices. They shew with admirable clearness
the way in which Gnosticism originated. Galen says (quoted by Gieseler, Church Hist. 1. 1. 4): “Hominum
plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut instituantur parabolis.
Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui Christiani vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi
tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes
192
extraordinary impression which these communities made. For what other peculiarities and
attractions had they to offer to that spirit than the certainty of their conviction (of eternal
life), and the purity of their life? We hear of no similar edifice being erected in the second
century on the basis of any other Oriental cult—even the Mithras cult is scarcely to be
mentioned here—as the Gnostic was on the foundation of the Christian.176 The Christian
communities, however, together with their worship of Christ, formed the real solid basis of
the greater number and the most important of the Gnostic systems, and in this fact we have,
on the very threshold of the great conflict, a triumph of Christianity over Hellenism. The
triumph lay in the recognition of what Christianity had already performed as a moral and
social power. This recognition found expression in bringing the highest that one possessed
as a gift to be consecrated by the new religion, a philosophy of religion whose end was plain
and simple, but whose means were mysterious and complicated.
§ 3. History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared.
238
In the previous section we have been contemplating Gnosticism as it reached its prime
in the great schools of Basilides and Valentinus, and those related to them,177 at the close
ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearam abhorrent. Sunt enim inter
eos feminas et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui in animis regendis coërcendisque
et in accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus.” Christians, therefore,
are philosophers without philosophy. What a challenge for them to produce such, that is to seek out the latent
philosophy! Even Celsus could not but admit a certain relationship between Christians and philosophers. But
as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the Christians could neither include nor endure a philosophy,
he declared that the moral doctrines of the Christians were borrowed from the philosophers (I. 4). In course of
his presentation (V. 65: VI. 12, 15-19, 42: VII. 27-35) he deduces the most decided marks of Christianity, as well
as the most important sayings of Jesus from (misunderstood) statements of Plato and other Greek philosophers.
This is not the place to shew the contradictions in which Celsus was involved by this. But it is of the greatest
significance that even this intelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something precious. The
whole of Christianity from its very origin appeared to Celsus (in one respect) precisely as the Gnostic systems
appear to us, that is, these really are what Christianity as such seemed to Celsus to be. Besides, it was constantly
asserted up to the fifth century that Christ had drawn from Plato’s writings. Against those who made this assertion,
Ambrosius (according to Augustine, Ep. 31. C. 8) wrote a treatise, which unfortunately is no longer in existence.
176 The Simonian system at most might be named, on the basis of the syncretistic religion founded by Simon
Magus. But we know little about it, and that little is uncertain. Parallel attempts are demonstrable in the third
century on the basis of various “revealed” fundamental ideas (ἡ ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφία).
177 Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenæus (I. 29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-
called Ophites, Peratæ, Sethites and the school of the Gnostic Justin (Hippol. Philosoph. V. 6-28). There is no
reason for regarding them as earlier or more Oriental than the Valentinians, as is done by Hilgenfeld against
Baur, Möller, and Gruber (the Ophites, 1864). See also Lipsius, “Ophit. Systeme,” i. d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol.
1863. IV. 1864, I. These schools claimed for themselves the name Gnostic (Hippol. Philosoph V. 6). A part of
193
of the period we are now considering, and became an important factor in the history of
dogma. But this Gnosticism had (1) preliminary stages, and (2) was always accompanied
by a great number of sects, schools and undertakings which were only in part related to it,
and yet, reasonably enough, were grouped together with it.
To begin with the second point, the great Gnostic schools were flanked on the right and
left by a motley series of groups which at their extremities can hardly be distinguished from
popular Christianity on the one hand, and from the Hellenic and the common world on
the other.178 On the right were communities such as the Encratites, which put all stress on
a strict asceticism, in support of which they urged the example of Christ, but which here
and there fell into dualistic ideas.179 There were, further, whole communities which, for
them, as is specially apparent from Orig. c. Celsus. VI., is not to be reckoned Christian. This motley group is
but badly known to us through Epiphanius, much better through the original Gnostic writings preserved in the
Coptic language. (Pistis Sophia and the works published by Carl Schmidt. Texte u. Unters. Bd. VIII.) Yet these
original writings belong, for the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the important state-
ments of Porphyry in the Vita Plotini. c. 16), and shew a Gnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild
speculations, formulæ, mysteries, and ceremonial. However, from these very monuments it becomes plain that
Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a ritual system (see below).
178 On Marcion, see the following Chapter.
179 We know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might refer even to the Epistle to the Romans) there
were circles of ascetics in the Christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law, under the name
of Christian perfection, complete abstinence from marriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet.
(Clem. Strom. III. 6. 49: ὑπὸ διαβόλου ταύτην παραδίδοθσαι δογματίζουσι, μιμεῖσθαι δ᾽ αὐτοὺς οἱ μεγάλαυχοί
φασι τὸν κύριον μήτε γήμαντα, μήτε τι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ κτησάμενον μᾶλλον παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους νενοηκέναι τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον καυχόμενοι—Here then, already, imitation of the poor life of Jesus, the “Evangelic” life, was the
watchword. Tatian wrote a book, περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ, that is, on perfection according to
the Redeemer: in which he set forth the irreconcilability of the worldly life with the Gospel). No doubt now ex-
isted in tht; Churches that abstinence from marriage, from wine and flesh, and from possessions, was the perfect
fulfilling of the law of Christ (βαστάζειν ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ κύριου). But in wide circles strict abstinence was
deduced from a special charism, all boastfulness was forbidden, and the watchword given out: ὅσον δύνασαι
ἁγνεύσεις, which may be understood as a compromise with the worldly life as well as a reminiscence of a freer
morality (see my notes on Didache, c. 6: 11, 11 and Prolegg. p. 42 ff.). Still, the position towards asceticism
yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was more and more found in distinguishing a higher and a lower
though sufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it claimed to be the alone authoritative
one. On the other hand, there were societies of Christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to all
Christians the highest demands of Christ, and thus arose, by secession, the communities of the Encratites and
Severians. But in the circumstances of the time even they could not but be touched by the Hellenic mode of
thought, to the effect of associating a speculative theory with asceticism, and thus approximating to Gnosticism.
This is specially plain in Tatian, who connected himself with the Encratites, and in consequence of the severe
194
decennia, drew their views of Christ from books which represented him as a heavenly spirit
who had merely assumed an apparent body.180 There were also individual teachers who
brought forward peculiar opinions without thereby causing any immediate stir in the
Churches.181 On the left there were schools such as the Carpocratians, in which the philo-
239
sophy and communism of Plato were taught, the son of the founder and second teacher
Epiphanes honoured as a God (at Cephallenia), as Epicurus was in his school, and the image
of Jesus crowned along with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.182 On this left flank
240
are, further, swindlers who take their own way, like Alexander of Abonoteichus, magicians,
soothsayers, sharpers and jugglers, under the sign-board of Christianity, deceivers and hy-
pocrites who appear using mighty words with a host of unintelligible formulæ, and take up
with scandalous ceremonies in order to rob men of their money and women of their hon-
asceticism which he prescribed, could no longer maintain the identity of the supreme God and the creator of
the world (see the fragments of his later writings in the Corp. Apol. ed. Otto. T. VI.). As the Pauline Epistles
could furnish arguments to either side, we see some Gnostics, such as Tatian himself, making diligent use of
them, while others, such as the Severians, rejected them. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 29, 5, and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65). The
Encratite controversy was, on the one hand, swallowed up by the Gnostic, and on the other hand, replaced by
the Montanistic. The treatise written in the days of Marcus Aurelius by a certain Musanus (where?) which
contains warnings against joining the Encratites (Euseb. H. E. VI. 28) we unfortunately no longer possess.
180 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 12. Docetic elements are apparent even in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter recently
discovered.
181 Here, above all, we have to remember Tatian, who in his highly praised Apology had already rejected al-
together the eating of flesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit, matter, and the nature of
man (c. 12 ff.). The fragments of the Hypotyposes of Clem. of Alex. show how much one had to bear in some
rural Churches at the end of the second century.
182 See Clem. Strom. III. 2. 5; Ἐπιφάνης, ὑιὸς Καρποκράτους, ἔζησε τὰ πάντα ἔτη ἑπτακαίδεκα καί θεὸς ἐν
Σαμῃ τῆς Κεφαλληνίας τετίμηται, ἔνθα αὐτῷ ἱερὸν ῥυτῶν λίθων, βωμοί, τεμένη, μουσεῖον, ᾠκοδόμηταί τε
καί καθιέρωται, καὶ συνιόντες εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν οἱ Καφαλλῆνες κατὰ νουμηνίαν γενέθλιον ἀποθέωσιν θύουσιν
Ἐπιφάνει, ππένδουσι τε καὶ εὐωχοῦνται καί ὑμ
́ νοι λέγονται. Clement’s quotations from the writings of Epiphanes
shew him to be a pure Platonist: the proposition that property is theft is found in him. Epiphanes and his father,
Carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate Plato’s State with the Christian ideal of the union of
men with each other. Christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see Irenæus. I. 25. 5:
“Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia
fabricatas habent et eas coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum
imagine Pythagoræ et Platonis et Aristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut
gentes faciunt.”
195
our.183 All this was afterwards called “Heresy” and “Gnosticism,” and is still so called.184
And these names may be retained, if we will understand by them nothing else than the world
taken into Christianity, all the manifold formations which resulted from the first contact of
the new religion with the society into which it entered. To prove the existence of that left
241
wing of Gnosticism is of the greatest interest for the history of dogma, but the details are of
no consequence. On the other hand, in the aims and undertakings of the Gnostic right, it
is just the details that are of greatest significance, because they shew that there was no fixed
boundary between what one may call common Christian and Gnostic Christian. But as
Gnosticism, in its contents, extended itself from the Encratites and the philosophic inter-
pretation of certain articles of the Christian proclamation as brought forward without offence
by individual teachers in the communities, to the complete dissolution of the Christian
element by philosophy, or the religious charlatanry of the age, so it exhibits itself formally
also in a long series of groups which comprised all imaginable forms of unions. There were
churches, ascetic associations, mystery cults, strictly private philosophic schools,185 free
unions for edification, entertainments by Christian charlatans and deceived deceivers, who
183 See the “Gnostics” of Hermas, especially the false prophet whom he portrays, Maud XI., Lucian’s Peregrinus,
and the Marcus, of whose doings Irenæus (I. 13 ff.) gives such an abominable picture. To understand how such
people were able to obtain a following so quickly in the Churches, we must remember the respect in which the
“prophets” were held (see Didache XI.). If one had once given the impression that he had the Spirit, he could
win belief for the strangest things, and could allow himself all things possible (see the delineations of Celsus in
Orig. c. Cels. VII. 9. 11). We hear frequently of Gnostic prophets and prophetesses: see my notes on Herm.
Mand. XI. 1. and Didache XI. 7. If an early Christian element is here preserved by the Gnostic schools, it has
undoubtedly been hellenised and secularised as the reports shew. But that the prophets altogether were in danger
of being secularised is shewn in Didache XI. In the case of the Gnostics the process is again only hastened.
184 The name Gnostic originally attached to schools which had so named themselves. To these belonged
above all, the so-called Ophites, but not the Valentinians or Basilideans.
185 Special attention should be given to this form, as it became in later times of the very greatest importance
for the general development of doctrine in the Church. The sect of Carpocrates was a school. Of Tatian, Irenæus
says (I. 28. 1): Τατίανος Ἰουστινου ἀκροατὴς γεγονώς . . . . μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν ἀποστὰς τῆς ἐκκλησίας,
οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς . . . . ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V.
13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite διαασκαλεῖον. Other names were: “Collegium” (Tertull. ad Valent. 1); “Secta,” the
word had not always a bad meaning; αἵρεσις, ἐκκλησία (Clem. Strom. VII. 16. 98; on the other hand, VII. 15.
92: Tertull. de præscr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent); θίασος (Iren. I. 13, 4, for the Marcosians), συναγωγή,
σύστημα, διατριβή, αἱ ἀθρώπιναι συνηλύσεις, factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum. The
mystery-organisation most clearly appears in the Naassenes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenæus, and the
Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as the Coptic-Gnostic documents that have been preserved. (See Koffmane,
above work, pp. 6-22).
196
appeared as magicians and prophets, attempts at founding new religions after the model
and under the influence of the Christian, etc. But, finally, the thesis that Gnosticism is
identical with an acute secularising of Christianity in the widest sense of the word, is con-
firmed by the study of its own literature. The early Christian production of Gospel and
Apocalypses was indeed continued in Gnosticism, yet so that the class of “Acts of the
Apostles” was added to them, and that didactic, biographic and “belles lettres” elements
242
were received into them, and claimed a very important place. If this makes the Gnostic lit-
erature approximate to the profane, that is much more the case with the scientific theological
literature which Gnosticism first produced. Dogmatico-philosophic tracts, theologico-crit-
ical treatises, historical investigations and scientific commentaries on the sacred books,
were, for the first time in Christendom, composed by the Gnostics, who in part occupied
the foremost place in the scientific knowledge, religious earnestness and ardour of the age.
They form in every respect the counterpart to the scientific works which proceeded from
the contemporary philosophic schools. Moreover, we possess sufficient knowledge of Gnostic
hymns and odes, songs for public worship, didactic poems, magic formulæ, magic books,
etc., to assure us that Christian Gnosticism took possession of a whole region of the secular
life in its full breadth, and thereby often transformed the original forms of Christian literature
into secular.186 If, however, we bear in mind how all this at a later period was gradually le-
gitimised in the Catholic Church, philosophy, the science of the sacred books, criticism and
exegesis, the ascetic associations, the theological schools, the mysteries, the sacred formulæ,
243
186 The particulars here belong to church history. Overbeck (“Ueber die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur”
in d. hist. Ztschr. N. F. Bd. XII. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out the importance, for the
history of the Church, of the forms of literature as they were gradually received in Christendom. Scientific,
theological literature has undoubtedly its origin in Gnosticism. The Old Testament was here, for the first time,
systematically and also in part historically criticised; a selection was here made from the primitive Christian
literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the sacred hooks (Basilides and especially the
Valentinians, see Heracleon’s comm. on the Gospel of John [in Origen]; the Pauline Epistles were also technically
expounded; tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic problems (for example, περὶ δικαιοσύνης—τερὶ
προσφυοῦς ψυχῆς—ἡθικὰ—περὶ ἐγκρατείας ἡ περὶ εὐνουχίας), and systematic doctrinal systems already con-
structed (as the Basilidean and Valentinian); the original form of the Gospel was here first transmuted into the
Greek form of sacred novel and biography (see, above all, the Gospel of Thomas, which was used by the Marco-
sians and Naassenes, and which contained miraculous stories from the childhood of Jesus); here, finally, psalms,
odes and hymns were first composed (see the Acts of Lucius, the psalms of Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander
the disciple of Valentinus, the poems of Bardesanes). Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus have indeed noted
that the scientific method of interpretation followed by the Gnostics, was the same as that of the philosophers
(e.g., of Philo). Valentinus, as is recognised even by the Church Fathers, stands out prominent for his mental
vigour and religious imagination; Heracleon for his exegetic theological ability; Ptolemy for his ingenious criticism
197
the superstition, the charlatanism, all kinds of profane literature, etc., it seems to prove the
thesis that the victorious epoch of the gradual hellenising of Christianity followed the
abortive attempts at an acute hellenising.
The traditional question as to the origin and development of Gnosticism, as well as that
about the classification of the Gnostic systems, will have to be modified in accordance with
the foregoing discussion. As the different Gnostic systems might be contemporary, and in
part were undoubtedly contemporary, and as a graduated relation holds good only between
some few groups, we must, in the classification, limit ourselves essentially to the features
which have been specified in the foregoing paragraph, and which coincide with the position
of the different groups to the early Christian tradition in its connection with the Old Testa-
ment religion, both as a rule of practical life, and of the common cultus.187
As to the origin of Gnosticism, we see how, even in the earliest period, all possible ideas
and principles foreign to Christianity force their way into it, that is, are brought in under
Christian rules, and find entrance, especially in the consideration of the Old Testament.188
We might be satisfied with the observation that the manifold Gnostic systems were produced
244
by the increase of this tendency. In point of fact we must admit that in the present state of
our sources, we can reach no sure knowledge beyond that. These sources, however, give
certain indications which should not be left unnoticed. If we leave out of account the two
assertions of opponents, that Gnosticism was produced by demons189 and—this, however,
of the Old Testament and his keen perception of the stages of religious development (see his Epistle to Flora in
Epiphanius, hær. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of the language of Valentinus one extract from a homily may suffice
(in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89). Ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἀθάνατοί ἐστε καὶ τέκνα ζωῆς ἐστε αἰωνίας, καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἡθέλετε
μερίσασθαι εἰς ἐαυτούς, ἵνα δαπανήσιτε αὐτὸν καὶ ἀναλώσητε, καὶ ἀποθάνή ὁ θάνατος ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ δι᾽ ὑμῶν,
ὁτ́ αν γὰρ τὸν μὲν κόσμον λύητε, αὐτοι δὲ μὴ κατλύησθε, κυριεύετε τῆς κρίσεως καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς ἀπάσης. Basilides
falls into the background behind Valentinus and his school. Yet the Church Fathers, when they wish to summarise
the most important Gnostics, usually mention Simon Magus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion (even Apelles). On
the relation of the Gnostics to the New Testament writings and to the New Testament, see Zahn, Gesch. des N.
T.-lichen Kanons. I. 2. p. 718.
187 Baur’s classification of the Gnostic systems, which rests on the observation of how they severally realised
the idea of Christianity as the absolute religion in contrast to Judaism and Heathenism, is very ingenious and
contains a great element of truth. But it is insufficient with reference to the whole phenomenon of Gnosticism,
and has been carried out by Baur by violent abstractions.
188 The question, therefore, as to the time of the origin of Gnosticism as a complete phenomenon cannot be
answered. The remarks of Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22) refer to the Jerusalem Church, and have not even
for that the value of a fixed datum. The only important question here is the point of time at which the expulsion
or secession of the schools and unions took place in the different national churches.
189 Justin Apol. 1. 26.
198
was said at a comparatively late period—that it originated in ambition and resistance to the
ecclesiastical office, the episcopate, we find in Hegesippus, one of the earliest writers on the
subject, the statement that the whole of the heretical schools sprang out of Judaism or the
Jewish sects; in the later writers, Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, that these schools owe
most to the doctrines of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, etc.190 But they all agree in this,
that a definite personality, viz., Simon the Magician, must be regarded as the original source
of the heresy. If we try it by these statements of the Church Fathers, we must see at once
that the problem in this case is limited—certainly in a proper way. For after Gnosticism is
seen to be the acute secularising of Christianity the only question that remains is, how are
we to account for the origin of the great Gnostic schools, that is, whether it is possible to
indicate their preliminary stages. The following may be asserted here with some confidence:
Long before the appearance of Christianity, combinations of religion had taken place in
Syria and Palestine,191 especially in Samaria, in so far, on the one hand, as the Assyrian and
Babylonian religious philosophy, together with its myths, as well as the Greek popular religion
with its manifold interpretations, had penetrated as far as the eastern shore of the Mediter-
245
ranean, and been accepted even by the Jews; and, on the other hand, the Jewish Messianic
idea had spread and called forth various movements.192 The result of every mixing of na-
tional religions, however, is to break through the traditional, legal and particular forms.193
For the Jewish religion syncretism signified the shaking of the authority of the Old Testament
by a qualitative distinction of its different parts, as also doubt as to the identity of the supreme
God with the national God. These ferments were once more set in motion by Christianity.
190 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. IV. 22, Iren. II. 14. 1 f., Tertull. de præscr. 7, Hippol. Philosoph. The Church
Fathers have also noted the likeness of the cultus of Mithras and other deities.
191 We must leave the Essenes entirely out of account here, as their teaching, in all probability, is not to be
considered syncretistic in the strict sense of the word, (see Lucius, “Der Essenismus,” 1881,) and as we know
absolutely nothing of a greater diffusion of it. But we need no names here, as a syncretistic, ascetic Judaism could
and did arise everywhere in Palestine and the Diaspora.
192 Freudenthal’s a Hellenistische Studien” informs us as to the Samaritan syncretism; see also Hilgenfeld’s
“Ketzergeschichte,” p. 149 ff. As to the Babylonian mythology in Gnosticism, see the statements in the elaborate
article, “Manichäismus,” by Kessler (Real-Encycl. für protest. Theol., 2 Aufl.).
193 Wherever traditional religions are united under the badge of philosophy a conservative syncretism is the
result, because the allegoric method, that is, the criticism of all religion, veiled and unconscious of itself, is able
to blast rocks and bridge over abysses. All forms may remain here under certain circumstances, but a new spirit
enters into them. On the other hand, where philosophy is still weak, and the traditional religion is already shaken
by another, there arises the critical syncretism in which either the gods of one religion are subordinated to those
of another, or the elements of the traditional religion are partly eliminated and replaced by others. Here, also,
the soil is prepared for new religious formations, for the appearance of religious founders.
199
We know that in the Apostolic age there were attempts in Samaria to found new religions,
which were in all probability influenced by the tradition and preaching concerning Jesus.
Dositheus, Simon Magus, Cleobius, and Menander appeared as Messiahs or bearers of the
God-head, and proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely
mixed with Babylonian myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship,
the breaking up of Jewish particularism, the criticism of the Old Testament,—which for
long had had great difficulty in retaining its authority in many circles, in consequence of
the widened horizon and the deepening of religious feeling,—finally, the wild syncretism,
whose aim, however, was a universal religion, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon.194
His enterprise appeared to the Christians as a diabolical caricature of their own religion,
246
and the impression made by the success which Simonianism gained by a vigorous propaganda
even beyond Palestine into the West, supported this idea.195 We can therefore understand
how, afterwards, all heresies were traced back to Simon. To this must be added that we can
actually trace in many Gnostic systems the same elements which were prominent in the re-
ligion proclaimed by Simon (the Babylonian and Syrian), and that the new religion of the
Simonians, just like Christianity, had afterwards to submit to be transformed into a philo-
sophic, scholastic doctrine.196 The formal parallel to the Gnostic doctrines was therewith
established. But even apart from these attempts at founding new religions, Christianity in
Syria, under the influence of foreign religions and speculation on the philosophy of religion,
194 It was a serious mistake of the critics to regard Simon Magus as a fiction, which, moreover, has been given
up by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, p. 163 ff.), and Lipsius (Apocr. Apostelgesch. II. 1),—the latter, however,
not decidedly. The whole figure as well as the doctrines attributed to Simon (see Acts of the Apostles, Justin,
Irenæus, Hippolytus) not only have nothing improbable in them, but suit very well the religious circumstances
which we must assume for Samaria. The main point in Simon is his endeavour to create a universal religion of
the supreme God. This explains his success among the Samaritans and Greeks. He is really a counterpart to Jesus,
whose activity can just as little have been unknown to him as that of Paul. At the same time it cannot be denied
that the later tradition about Simon was the most confused and biassed imaginable, or that certain Jewish
Christians at a later period may have attempted to endow the magician with the features of Paul in order to
discredit the personality and teaching of the Apostle. But this last assumption requires a fresh investigation.
195 Justin. Apol. 1 26: Καὶ σχεδὸν πάντες μὲν Σαμαρεις, ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν, ὡς τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν
Σίμωνα ὁμολογοῦντες, ἐκεῖνον καὶ προσκυνοῦσιν (besides the account in the Philos. and Orig. c. Cels. 1. 57:
VI. II). The positive statement of Justin that Simon came even to Rome (under Claudius) can hardly be refuted
from the account of the Apologist himself, and therefore not at all. (See Renan, “Antichrist”.)
196 We have it as such in the Μὲγάλη Ἀπόφασις which Hippolytus (Philosoph. VI. 19. 20) made use of. This
Simonianism may perhaps have related to the original, as the doctrines of the Christian Gnostics to the
Apostolic preaching.
200
gave a powerful impulse to the criticism of the law and the prophets which had already been
awakened. In consequence of this, there appeared, about the transition of the first century
to the second, a series of teachers who, under the impression of the Gospel, sought to make
247
the Old Testament capable of furthering the tendency to a universal religion, not by allegor-
ical interpretation, but by a sifting criticism. These attempts were of very different kinds.
Teachers such as Cerinthus clung to the notion that the universal religion revealed by Christ
was identical with undefiled Mosaism, and therefore maintained even such articles as cir-
cumcision and the Sabbath commandment, as well as the earthly kingdom of the future.
But they rejected certain parts of the law, especially, as a rule, the sacrificial precepts, which
were no longer in keeping with the spiritual conception of religion. They conceived the
creator of the world as a subordinate being distinct from the supreme God, which is always
the mark of a syncretism with a dualistic tendency; introduced speculations about Æons
and angelic powers, among whom they placed Christ, and recommended a strict asceticism.
When, in their Christology, they denied the miraculous birth, and saw in Jesus a chosen
man on whom the Christ, that is, the Holy Spirit, descended at the baptism, they were not
creating any innovation, but only following the earliest Palestinian tradition. Their rejection
of the authority of Paul is explained by their efforts to secure the Old Testament as far as
possible for the universal religion.197 There were others who rejected all ceremonial com-
mandments as proceeding from the devil, or from some intermediate being, but yet always
held firmly that the God of the Jews was the supreme God. But alongside of these stood also
decidedly anti-Jewish groups, who seem to have been influenced in part by the preaching
of Paul. They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament, and perceived
the impossibility of saving it for the Christian universal religion. They rather connected this
religion with the cultus-wisdom of Babylon and Syria, which seemed more adapted for al-
legorical interpretations, and opposed this formation to the Old Testament religion. The
248
God of the Old Testament appears here at best as a subordinate Angel of limited power,
wisdom and goodness. In so far as he was identified with the creator of the world, and the
creation of the world itself was regarded as an imperfect or an abortive undertaking, expres-
sion was given both to the anti-Judaism and to that religious temper of the time which could
only value spiritual blessing in contrast with the world and the sensuous. These systems
appeared more or less strictly dualistic, in proportion as they did or did not accept a slight
co-operation of the supreme God in the creation of man; and the way in which the character
and power of the world-creating God of the Jews was conceived, serves as a measure of how
197 The Heretics opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians may belong to these. On Cerinthus, see Polycarp
in Iren. III. 3. 2, Irenæus (I. 26. 1: III. 11. I), Hippolytus and the redactions of the Syntagma, Cajus in Euseb. III.
28. 2, Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 411 ff. To this category belong also the Ebionites and Elkasites of Epiphanius.
(See Chap. 6.)
201
far the several schools were from the Jewish religion and the Monism that ruled it. All possible
conceptions of the God of the Jews, from the assumption that he is a being supported in his
undertakings by the supreme God, to his identification with Satan, seem to have been ex-
hausted in these schools. Accordingly, in the former case, the Old Testament was regarded
as the revelation of a subordinate God, in the latter as the manifestation of Satan, and
therefore the ethic—with occasional use of Pauline formulæ—always assumed an antinomian
form compared with the Jewish law, in some cases antinomian even in the sense of libertin-
ism. Correspondingly, the anthropology exhibits man as bipartite, or even tripartite, and
the Christology is strictly docetic and anti-Jewish. The redemption by Christ is always, as a
matter of course, related only to that element in humanity which has an affinity with the
Godhead.198
It is uncertain whether we should think of the spread of these doctrines in Syria in the
form of a school, or of a cultus; probably it was both. From the great Gnostic systems as 249
formed by Basilides and Valentinus they are distinguished by the fact that they lack the pe-
culiar philosophic, that is Hellenic, element, the speculative conversion of angels and /Eons
into real ideas, etc. We have almost no knowledge of their effect. This Gnosticism has never
directly been a historical factor of striking importance, and the great question is whether it
was so indirectly.199 That is to say, we do not know whether this Syrian Gnosticism was, in
198 The two Syrian teachers, Saturninus and Cerdo, must in particular be mentioned here. The first (See Iren.
I. 24. 1. 2, Hippolyt. and the redactions of the Syntagma) was not strictly speaking a dualist, and therefore allowed
the God of the Old Testament to be regarded as an Angel of the supreme God, while at the same time he distin-
guished him from Satan. Accordingly, he assumed that the supreme God co-operated in the creation of man by
angel powers—sending a ray of light, an image of light, that should be imitated as an example and enjoined as
an ideal. But all men have not received the ray of light. Consequently, two classes of men stand in abrupt contrast
with each other. History is the conflict of the two. Satan stands at the head of the one, the God of the Jews at the
head of the other. The Old Testament is a collection of prophecies out of both camps. The truly good first appears
in the Æon Christ, who assumed nothing cosmic, did not even submit to birth. He destroys the works of Satan
(generation, eating of flesh), and delivers the men who have within them a spark of light. The Gnosis of Cerdo
was much coarser. (Iren. I. 27. 1, Hippolyt. and the redactions.) He contrasted the good God and the God of the
Old Testament as two primary beings. The latter he identified with the creator of the world. Consequently, he
completely rejected the Old Testament and everything cosmic and taught that the good God was first revealed
in Christ. Like Saturninus he preached a strict docetism; Christ had no body, was not born, and suffered in an
unreal body. All else that the Fathers report of Cerdo’s teaching has probably been transferred to him from
Marcion, and is therefore very doubtful.
199 This question might perhaps be answered if we had the Justinian Syntagma against all heresies; but in the
present condition of our sources it remains wrapped in obscurity. What may be gathered from the fragments
of Hegesippus, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Pastoral Epistles and other documents, such as, for example, the
202
the strict sense, the preparatory stage of the great Gnostic schools, so that the schools should
be regarded as an actual reconstruction of it. But there can be no doubt that the appearance
of the great Gnostic schools in the Empire, from Egypt to Gaul, is contemporaneous with
the vigorous projection of Syrian cults westwards, and therefore the assumption is suggested,
that the Syrian Christian syncretism was also spread in connection with that projection,
and underwent a change corresponding to the new conditions. We know definitely that the
Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, came to Rome, wrought there, and exercised an influence on Marcion.
But no less probable is the assumption that the great Hellenic Gnostic schools arose spon-
taneously, in the sense of having been independently developed out of the elements to which
250
undoubtedly the Asiatic cults also belonged, without being influenced in any way by Syrian
syncretistic efforts. The conditions for the growth of such formations were nearly the same
in all parts of the Empire. The great advance lies in the fact that the religious material as
contained in the Gospel, the Old Testament, and the wisdom connected with the old cults,
was philosophically, that is scientifically, manipulated by means of allegory, and the aggregate
of mythological powers translated into an aggregate of ideas. The Pythagorean and Platonic,
more rarely the Stoic philosophy, were compelled to do service here. Great Gnostic schools,
which were at the same time unions for worship, first enter into the clear light of history in
this form, (see previous section), and on the conflict with these, surrounded as they were
by a multitude of dissimilar and related formations, depends the progress of the develop-
ment.200
We are no longer able to form a perfectly clear picture of how these schools came into
being, or how they were related to the Churches. It lay in the nature of the case that the
heads of the schools, like the early itinerant heretical teachers, devoted attention chiefly, if
Epistle of Jude, is in itself so obscure, so detached and so ambiguous that it is of no value for historical construc-
tion.
200 There are, above all, the schools of the Basilideans, Valentinians and Ophites. To describe the systems in
their full development lies, in my opinion, outside the business of the history of dogma and might easily lead
to the mistake that the systems as such were controverted, and that their construction was peculiar to Christian
Gnosticism. The construction, as remarked above, is rather that of the later Greek philosophy, though it cannot
be mistaken that, for us, the full parallel to the Gnostic systems first appears in those of the Neoplatonists. But
only particular doctrines and principles of the Gnostics were really called in question their critique of the world,
of providence, of the resurrection, etc.; these therefore are to be adduced in the next section. The fundamental
features of an inner development can only be exhibited in the case of the most important, viz., the Valentinian
school. But even here we must distinguish an Eastern and a Western branch. (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: “Valentiniani
frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos.” Iren. 1. I.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35; Orig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech.
Lomm. XIV. p. 40: “Valentini robustissima secta”.)
203
not exclusively, to those who were already Christian, that is, to the Christian communities.201
From the Ignatian Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. III. 7. 1: Sim. VIII. 6. 5: IX. 19.
and especially 22), and the Didache (XI. I. 2) we see that those teachers who boasted of a
251
special knowledge and sought to introduce “strange” doctrines, aimed at gaining the entire
churches. The beginning, as a rule, was necessarily the formation of conventicles. In the
first period therefore, when there was no really fixed standard for warding off the foreign
doctrines—Hermas is unable even to characterise the false doctrines—the warnings were
commonly exhausted in the exhortation: κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς
ἁγιασθήσονται, [“connect yourselves with the saints, because those who are connected with
them shall be sanctified”]. As a rule, the doctrines may really have crept in unobserved, and
those gained over to them may for long have taken part in a two-fold worship, the public
worship of the churches, and the new consecration. Those teachers must of course have
assumed a more aggressive attitude who rejected the Old Testament. The attitude of the
Church, when it enjoyed competent guidance, was one of decided opposition towards un-
masked or recognised false teachers. Yet Irenæus’ account of Cerdo in Rome shews us how
difficult it was at the beginning to get rid of a false teacher.202 For Justin, about the year 150,
the Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans and Saturninians are groups outside the com-
munities, and undeserving of the name “Christians.”203 There must therefore have been at
that time, in Rome and Asia Minor at least, a really perfect separation of those schools from
252
the Churches (it was different in Alexandria). Notwithstanding, this continued to be the
region from which those schools obtained their adherents. For the Valentinians recognised
201 Tertull. de præscr. 42: “De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non
ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si jacentibus
elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio ædificio venit, sed de veritatis
destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua ædificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum,
accusationem eloqui non habent.” (See adv. Valent. I. init.) This is hardly a malevolent accusation. The philo-
sophic interpretation of a religion will always impress those only on whom the religion itself has already made
an impression.
202 Iren. III. 4. 2: Κέρδων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐλθῶν καὶ ἐξομολογούμενος, οὕτως διετέλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν
λαθροδιδασκαλῶν ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἐξομολογούμενος, ποτὲ δὲ ἐλεγγόμενος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐδίδασκε κακῶς, καὶ
ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας; see besides the valuable account of Tertull. de præscr. 30. The account
of Irenæus (I. 13) is very instructive as to the kind of propaganda of Marcus, and the relation of the women he
deluded to the Church. Against actually recognised false teachers the fixed rule was to renounce all intercourse
with them (2 Joh. 10. 11; Iren. ep. ad Florin on Polycarp’s procedure, in Euseb. H. E. V. 20. 7; Iren. III. 3. 4). But
how were the heretics to be surely known?
203 Among those who justly bore this name he distinguishes those of οἱ ορθεγνώμενες κατὰ πάντα χριστανοί
εἰσιν (Dial. 80).
204
that the common Christians were much better than the heathen, that they occupied a middle
position between the “pneumatic” and the “hylic,” and might look forward to a kind of sal-
vation. This admission, as well as their conforming to the common Christian tradition, en-
abled them to spread their views in a remarkable way, and they may not have had any objec-
tion in many cases, to their converts remaining in the great Church. But can this community
have perceived, everywhere and at once, that the Valentinian distinction of “psychic” and
“pneumatic” is not identical with the scriptural distinction of children and men in under-
standing? Where the organisation of the school (the union for worship) required a long
time of probation, where degrees of connection with it were distinguished, and a strict as-
ceticism demanded of the perfect, it followed of course that those on the lower stage should
not be urged to a speedy break with the Church.204 But after the creation of the catholic
confederation of churches, existence was made more and more difficult for these schools.
Some of them lived on somewhat like our freemason-unions; some, as in the East, became
253
actual sects (confessions), in which the wise and the simple now found a place, as they were
propagated by families. In both cases they ceased to be what they had been at the beginning.
From about 210 they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though the Church
of Constantine and Theodosius was alone really able to suppress them.
§ 4. The most important Gnostic Doctrines.
We have still to measure and compare with the earliest tradition those Gnostic doctrines
which, partly at once and partly in the following period, became important. Once more,
however, we must expressly refer to the fact that the epoch-making significance of Gnosticism
for the history of dogma must not be sought chiefly in the particular doctrines, but rather
in the whole way in which Christianity is here conceived and transformed. The decisive
thing is the conversion of the Gospel into a doctrine, into an absolute philosophy of religion,
the transforming of the disciplina Evangelii into an asceticism based on a dualistic conception,
204 Very important is the description which Irenæus (III. 15. 2) and Tertullian have given of the conduct of
the Valentinians as observed by themselves (adv. Valent. 1). “Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare,
quod prædicant; si tamen prædicant qui occultant. Custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est (a comparison
with the Eleusinian mysteries follows). Si bona fide quæras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est,
aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire to subostendas
negant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cæde dispergunt. Ne discipulis quidem
propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant.” At a
later period Dionysius of Alex. in Euseb. H. E. VII. 7, speaks of Christians who maintain an apparent communion
with the brethren, but resort to one of the false teachers (cf. as to this Euseb. H. E. VI. 2. 13). The teaching of
Bardesanes influenced by Valentinus, who, moreover, was hostile to Marcionitism, was tolerated for a long time
in Edessa (by the Christian kings), nay, was recognised. The Bardesanites and the “Palutians” (catholics) were
differentiated only after the beginning of the third century.
205
and into a practice of mysteries.205 We have now briefly to shew, with due regard to the
earliest tradition, how far this transformation was of positive or negative significance for
the following period, that is, in what respects the following development was anticipated
by Gnosticism, and in what respects Gnosticism was disavowed by this development.206
(1) Christianity, which is the only true and absolute religion, embraces a revealed system
of doctrine (positive).
254
(2) This doctrine contains mysterious powers, which are communicated to men by
initiation (mysteries).
205 There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organise
and discipline Churches, which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. The Gnostic organisation
of schools and mysteries was not able to contend with the episcopal organisation of the Churches; see Ignat. ad
Smyr. 6. 2; Tertull. de præscr. 41. Attempts at actual formation of Churches were not altogether wanting in the
earliest period; at a later period they were forced on some schools. We have only to read Iren. III. 15. 2 in order
to see that these associations could only exist by finding support in a Church. Irenæus expressly remarks that
the Valentinians designated the Common Christians καθολικοί (communes) καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικοί, but that they,
on the other hand, complained that “we kept away from their fellowship without cause, as they thought like
ourselves.”
206 The differences between the Gnostic Christianity and that of the Church, that is, the later ecclesiastical
theology, were fluid, if we observe the following points. (1) That even in the main body of the Church the element
of knowledge was increasingly emphasised, and the Gospel began to be converted into a perfect knowledge of
the world (increasing reception of Greek philosophy, development of πίστις to γνῶσις. (2) That the dramatic
eschatology began to fade away. (3) That room was made for docetic views, and value put upon a strict asceticism.
On the other hand we must note: (i) That all this existed only in germ or fragments within the great Church
during the flourishing period of Gnosticism. (2) That the great Church held fast to the facts fixed in the baptismal
formula (in the Kerygma) and to the eschatological expectations, further, to the creator of the world as the supreme
God, to the unity of Jesus Christ, and to the Old Testament, and therefore rejected dualism. (3) That the great
Church defended the unity and equality of the human race, and therefore the uniformity and universal aim of
the Christian salvation. (4) That it rejected every introduction of new, especially of Oriental, Mythologies, guided
in this by the early Christian consciousness and a sure intelligence. A deeper, more thorough distinction between
the Church and the Gnostic parties hardly dawned on the consciousness of either. The Church developed herself
instinctively into an imperial Church, in which office was to play the chief role. The Gnostics sought to establish
or conserve associations in which the genius should rule, the genius in the way of the old prophets or in the
sense of Plato, or in the sense of a union of prophecy and philosophy. In the Gnostic conflict, at least at its close,
the judicial priest fought with the virtuoso and overcame him.
206
(3) The revealer is Christ (positive), but Christ alone, and only in his historical appear-
ance—no Old Testament Christ (negative); this appearance is itself redemption: the doctrine
is the announcement of it and of its presuppositions (positive).207
(4) Christian doctrine is to be drawn from the Apostolic tradition, critically examined.
This tradition lies before us in a series of Apostolic writings, and in a secret doctrine derived
from the Apostles (positive).208
255
207 The absolute significance of the person of Christ was very plainly expressed in Gnosticism (Christ is not
only the teacher of the truth, but the manifestation of the truth), more plainly than where he was regarded as
the subject of Old Testament revelation. The pre-existent Christ has significance in some Gnostic schools, but
always a comparatively subordinate one. The isolating of the person of Christ, and quite as much the explaining
away of his humanity, is manifestly out of harmony with the earliest tradition. But, on the other hand, it must
not be denied that the Gnostics recognised redemption in the historical Christ: Christ personally procured it
(see under 6. h.).
208 In this thesis, which may be directly corroborated by the most important Gnostic teachers, Gnosticism
shews that it desires in thesi (in a way similar to Philo) to continue on the soil of Christianity as a positive religion.
Conscious of being bound to tradition, it first definitely raised the question, What is Christianity? and criticised
and sifted the sources for an answer to the question. The rejection of the Old Testament led it to that question
and to this sifting. It may be maintained with the greatest probability, that the idea of a canonical collection of
Christian writings first emerged among the Gnostics (see also Marcion). They really needed such a collection,
while all those who recognised the Old Testament as a document of revelation, and gave it a Christian interpret-
ation, did not at first need a new document, but simply joined on the new to the old, the Gospel to the Old
Testament. From the numerous fragments of Gnostic commentaries on New Testament writings which have
been preserved, we see that these writings then enjoyed canonical authority, while at the same period we hear
nothing of such an authority nor of commentaries in the main body of Christendom (see Heinrici, “Die
Valentinianische Gnosis, u. d. h. Schrift,” 1871). Undoubtedly sacred writings were selected according to the
principle of apostolic origin. This is proved by the inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the collections of books.
There is evidence of such having been made by the Naassenes, Peratæ, Valentinians, Marcion, Tatian and the
Gnostic Justin. The collection of the Valentinians and the Canon of Tatian must have really coincided with the
main parts of the later Ecclesiastical Canon. The later Valentinians accommodated themselves to this Canon,
that is, recognised the books that had been added (Tertull. de præscr. 38). The question as to who first conceived
and realised the idea of a Canon of Christian writings, Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or whether this was
done by several at the same time, will always remain obscure, though many things favour Marcion. If it should
even be proved that Basilides (see Euseb. H. E. IV. 7. 7) and Valentinus himself regarded the Gospels only as
authoritative, yet the full idea of the Canon lies already in the fact of their making these the foundation and in-
terpreting them allegorically. The question as to the extent of the Canon afterwards became the subject of an
important controversy between the Gnostics and the Catholic Church. The Catholics throughout took up the
position that their Canon was the earlier, and the Gnostic collection the corrupt revision of it (they were unable
207
As exoteric it is comprehended in the regula fidei209 (positive), as esoteric it is propagated

by chosen teachers.210 256
257
to adduce proof, as is attested by Tertullian’s de præscr.). But the aim of the Gnostics to establish themselves
on the uncorrupted apostolic tradition gathered from writings, was crossed by three tendencies, which, moreover,
were all jointly operative in the Christian communities, and are therefore not peculiar to Gnosticism. (1) By
faith in the continuance of prophecy, in which new things are always revealed by the Holy Spirit (the Basilidean
and Marcionite prophets). (2) By the assumption of an esoteric secret tradition of the Apostles (see Clem. Strom.
VII. 17. 106. 108; Hipp. Philos. VII. 20; Iren. I. 25. 5: III. 2. 1; Tertull. de præscr. 25. Cf. the Gnostic book, Πίστις
Σοφία, which in great part is based on doctrines said to be imparted by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection).
(3) By the inability to oppose the continuous production of Evangelic writings, in other words, by the continuance
of this kind of literature and the addition of Acts of the Apostles (Gospel of the Egyptians (?), other Gospels,
Acts of John, Thomas, Philip, etc. We know absolutely nothing about the conditions under which these writings
originated, the measure of authority which they enjoyed, or the way in which they gained that authority). In all
these points which in Gnosticism hindered the development of Christianity to the “religion of a new book,” the
Gnostic schools shew that they stood precisely under the same conditions as the Christian communities in
general (see above Chap. 3. § 2). If all things do not deceive us, the same inner development may be observed
even in the Valentinian school as in the great Church, viz., the production of sacred Evangelic and Apostolic
writings, prophecy and secret gnosis falling more and more into the background, and the completed Canon
becoming the most important basis of the doctrine of religion. The later Valentinians (see Tertull. de præscr.
and adv. Valent.) seem to have appealed chiefly to this Canon, and Tatian no less (about whose Canon, see my
Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. pp. 213-218). But finally we must refer to the fact that it was the highest concern of the
Gnostics to furnish the historical proof of the Apostolic origin of their doctrine by an exact reference to the links
of the tradition (see Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche. 2nd ed. p. 338 f.). Here again it appears that
Gnosticism shared with Christendom the universal presupposition that the valuable thing is the Apostolic origin
(see above p. 160 f.), but that it first created artificial chains of tradition, and that this is the first point in which
it was followed by the Church: (see the appeals to the Apostolic Matthew, to Peter and Paul, through the mediation
of “Glaukias” and “Theodas,” to James and the favourite disciples of the Lord, in the case of the Naassenes,
Ophites, Basilideans and Valentinians, etc.; see, further, the close of the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora in Epistle
H. 33. 7: Μαθήσῃ ἑξῆς καὶ τὴν τούτου ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουμένη τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἣ ἐκ
διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡμεῖς παρειλήφαμεν, μετὰ καιροῦ [sic] κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος διδασκαλίᾳ,
as well as the passages adduced under 2). From this it further follows that the Gnostics may have compiled their
Canon solely according to the principle of Apostolic origin. Upon the whole we may see here how foolish it is
to seek to dispose of Gnosticism with the phrase, “lawless fancies.” On the contrary, the Gnostics purposely took
their stand on the tradition—nay, they were the first in Christendom who determined the range, contents and
manner of propagating the tradition. They are thus the first Christian theologians.
208
(5) The documents of revelation (Apostolic writings), just because they are such, must
be interpreted by means of allegory, that is, their deeper meaning must be extracted in this
way (positive).211
(6) The following may be noted as the main points in the Gnostic conception of the
several parts of the regula fide:
209 Here also we have a point of unusual historical importance. As we first find a new Canon among the
Gnostics, so also among them (and in Marcion) we first meet with the traditional complex of the Christian Ke-
rygma as a doctrinal confession (regula fide), that is, as a confession which, because it is fundamental, needs a
speculative exposition, but is set forth by this exposition as the summary of all wisdom. The hesitancy about the
details of the Kerygma only shews the general uncertainty which at that time prevailed. But again we see that
the later Valentinians completely accommodated themselves to the later development in the Church (Tertull.
adv. Valent. I.: “communem fidem adfirmant”), that is, attached themselves, probably even from the first, to
the existing forms; while in the Marcionite Church a peculiar regula was set up by a criticism of the tradition.
The regula, as a matter of course, was regarded as Apostolic. On Gnostic regulæ, see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3: II. præf.:
II. 19. 8: III. 11. 3: III. 16. 1. 5: Ptolem. ap. Epiph. h. 33. 7; Tertull. adv. Valent. 1. 4: de præscr. 42: adv. Marc. I.
1: IV. 5. 17; Ep. Petri ad Jacob in Clem. Hom. c. 1. We still possess, in great part verbatim, the regula of Apelles,
in Epiphan. h. 44. 2. Irenæus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne, 20) state that the Valentinian regula contained the
formula, “γεννηθέντα διὰ Μαρίας”; see on this, p. 205. In noting that the two points so decisive for Catholicism,
the Canon of the New Testament and the Apostolic regula, were first, in the strict sense, set up by the Gnostics
on the basis of a definite fixing and systematising of the oldest tradition, we may see that the weakness of
Gnosticism here consisted in its inability to exhibit the publicity of tradition and to place its propagation in
close connection with the organisation of the churches.
210 We do not know the relation in which the Valentinians placed the public Apostolic regula fide to the
secret doctrine derived from one Apostle. The Church, in opposition to the Gnostics, strongly emphasised the
publicity of all tradition. Yet afterwards, though with reservations, she gave a wide scope to the assumption of
a secret tradition.
211 The Gnostics transferred to the Evangelic writings, and demanded as simply necessary, the methods which
Barnabas and others used in expounding the Old Testament (see the samples of their exposition in Irenæus and
Clement. Heinrici, l.c.). In this way, of course, all the specialities of the system may be found in the documents.
The Church at first condemned this method (Tertull. de præcr. 17-19. 39; Iren. I. 8. 9), but applied it herself
from the moment in which she had adopted a New Testament Canon of equal authority with that of the Old
Testament. However, the distinction always remained, that in the confrontation of the two Testaments with the
views of getting proofs from prophecy, the history of Jesus described in the Gospels was not at first allegorised.
Yet afterwards the Christological dogmas of the third and following centuries demanded a docetic explanation
of many points in that history.
209
(a) The difference between the supreme God and the creator of the world, and therewith
the opposing of redemption and creation, and therefore the separation of the Mediator of
revelation from the Mediator of creation.212
(b) The separation of the supreme God from the God of the Old Testament, and there-
with the rejection of the Old Testament, or the assertion that the Old Testament contains 258
no revelations of the supreme God, or at least only in certain parts.213

(c) The doctrine of the independence and eternity of matter.
(d) The assertion that the present world sprang from a fall of man, or from an undertak-
ing hostile to God, and is therefore the product of an evil or intermediate being.214
212 In the Valentinian, as well as in all systems not coarsely dualistic, the Redeemer Christ has no doubt a
certain share in the constitution of the highest class of men, but only through complicated mediations. The
significance which is attributed to Christ in many systems for the production or organisation of the upper world
may be mentioned. In the Valentinian system there are several mediators. It may be noted that the abstract
conception of the divine primitive Being seldom called forth a real controversy. As a rule, offence was taken
only at the expression.
213 The Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora is very instructive here. If we leave out of account the peculiar Gnostic
conception, we have represented in Ptolemy’s criticism the later Catholic view of the Old Testament, as well as
also the beginning of a historical conception of it. The Gnostics were the first critics of the Old Testament in
Christendom. Their allegorical exposition of the Evangelic writings should be taken along with their attempts
at interpreting the Old Testament literally and historically. It may be noted, for example, that the Gnostics were
the first to call attention to the significance of the change of name for God in the Old Testament; see Iren. II.
35. 3. The early Christian tradition led to a procedure directly the opposite. Apelles, in particular, the disciple
of Marcion, exercised an intelligent criticism on the Old Testament; see my treatise, “de Apellis gnosi,” p. 71
sq., and also Texte u. Unters. VI. 3, p. 111 ff. Marcion himself recognised the historical contents of the Old
Testament as reliable and the criticism of most Gnostics only called in question its religious value.
214 Ecclesiastical opponents rightly put no value on the fact that some Gnostics advanced to Pan-Satanism
with regard to the conception of the world, while others beheld a certain justitia civilis ruling in the world. For
the standpoint which the Christian tradition had marked out, this distinction is just as much a matter of indif-
ference as the other, whether the Old Testament proceeded from an evil, or from an intermediate being. The
Gnostics attempted to correct the judgment of faith about the world and its relation to God, by an empiric view
of the world. Here again they are by no means “visionaries”, however fantastic the means by which they have
expressed their judgment about the condition of the world, and attempted to explain that condition. Those,
rather, are “visionaries” who give themselves up to the belief that the world is the work of a good and omnipotent
Deity, however apparently reasonable the arguments they adduce. The Gnostic (Hellenistic) philosophy of religion
at this point comes into the sharpest opposition to the central point of the Old Testament Christian belief, and
all else really depends on this. Gnosticism is antichristian so far as it takes away from Christianity its Old Testa-
ment foundation, and belief in the identity of the creator of the world with the supreme God. That was immedi-
ately felt and noted by its opponents.
210
(e) The doctrine that evil is inherent in matter and therefore is a physical potence.215
(f) The assumption of Æons, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in whom is un-
folded the absoluteness of the Godhead.216 259
(g) The assertion that Christ revealed a God hitherto unknown.

(h) The doctrine that in the person of Jesus Christ—the Gnostics saw in it redemption,
but they reduced the person to the physical nature—the heavenly Æon, Christ, and the human
appearance of that Æon must be clearly distinguished, and a “distincte agere” ascribed to
each. Accordingly, there were some, such as Basilides, who acknowledged no real union
between Christ and the man Jesus, whom, besides, they regarded as an earthly man. Others,
e.g., part of the Valentinians, among whom the greatest differences prevailed,—see Tertull.
adv. Valent. 39—taught that the body of Jesus was a heavenly psychical formation, and
sprang from the womb of Mary only in appearance. Finally, a third party, such as Saturninus,
declared that the whole visible appearance of Christ was a phantom, and therefore denied
260
215 The ecclesiastical opposition was long uncertain on this point. It is interesting to note that Basilides por-
trayed the sin inherent in the child from birth in a way that makes one feel as though he were listening to Au-
gustine (see the fragment from the 23rd book of the Ἐξηγητικά, in Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 83). But it is of great
importance to note how even very special later terminologies, dogmas, etc., of the Church, were in a certain way
anticipated by the Gnostics. Some samples will be given below; but meanwhile we may here refer to a fragment
from Apelles’ Syllogisms in Ambrosius (de Parad. V. 28): “Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque
autem per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: non ne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere,
quam ei deus contulit?” One seems here to be transferred into the fifth century.
216 The Gnostic teaching did not meet with a vigorous resistance even on this point, and could also appeal
to the oldest tradition. The arbitrariness in the number, derivation and designation of the Æons was contested.
The aversion to barbarism also co-operated here, in so far as Gnosticism delighted in mysterious words borrowed
from the Semites. But the Semitic element attracted as well as repelled the Greeks and Romans of the second
century. The Gnostic terminologies within the Æon speculations were partly reproduced among the Catholic
theologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics have already made use of the concept
“ὁμοούσιος”; see Iren., I. 5. I: ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν πνευματικὸν μὴ δεδυνῆσθαι αὐτὴν μορφῶσαι, ἐπειδὴ ὁμοούσιον
ὑπῆρχέν αὐτῇ (said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4, καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν γεγονότα· κατ᾽ εἰκόνα
μὲν τὸν ὑλικὸν ὑπάρχειν, παραπλήσιον μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον τῷ θεῷ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν δὲ τὸν ψυχικόν. I. 5.
5: τὸ δὲ κύημα τῆς μητρὸς τῆς “Ἀχαμώθ,” ὁμοούσιον ὑπάρχον τῇ μητρίς. In all these cases the word means “of
one substance.” It is found in the same sense in Clem., Hom. 20. 7: see also Philos. VII. 22; Clem., Exc. Theod.
42. Other terms also which have acquired great significance in the Church since the days of Origen (e.g.,
ἀγέννητος) are found among the Gnostics, see Ep. Ptol. ad Floram, 5; and Bigg. (1. c. p. 58, note 3) calls attention
to the appearance of τρίας in Excerpt. ex. Theod. § 80, perhaps the earliest passage.
211
the birth of Christ.217 Christ separates that which is unnaturally united, and thus leads
everything back again to himself; in this redemption consists (full contrast to the notion of
the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις.
261
217 The characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not Docetism in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the
two natures, that is, the distinction between Jesus and Christ, or the doctrine that the Redeemer as Redeemer
was not a man. The Gnostics based this view on the inherent sinfulness of human nature, and it was shared by
many teachers of the age without being based on any principle (see above, p. 196 f.). The most popular of the
three Christologies briefly characterised above was undoubtedly that of the Valentinians. It is found, with great
variety of details, in most of the nameless fragments of Gnostic literature that have been preserved, as well as in
Apelles. This Christology might be accommodated to the accounts of the Gospels and the baptismal confession;
(how far is shewn by the regula of Apelles, and that of the Valentinians may have run in similar terms). It was
taught here that Christ had passed through Mary as a channel; from this doctrine followed very easily the notion
of the Virginity of Mary, uninjured even after the birth—it was already known to Clem. Alex. (Strom. VII. 16.
93). The Church also, later on, accepted this view. It is very difficult to get a clear idea of the Christology of Ba-
silides, as very diverse doctrines were afterwards set up in his school as is shewn by the accounts. Among them
is the doctrine, likewise held by others, that Christ in descending from the highest heaven took to himself
something from every sphere through which he passed. Something similar is found among the Valentinians,
some of whose prominent leaders made a very complicated phenomenon of Christ, and gave him also a direct
relation to the demiurge. There is further found here the doctrine of the heavenly humanity, which was afterwards
accepted by ecclesiastical theologians. Along with the fragments of Basilides the account of Clem. Alex. seems
to me the most reliable. According to this, Basilides taught that Christ descended on the man Jesus at the baptism.
Some of the Valentinians taught something similar: the Christology of Ptolemy is characterised by the union of
all conceivable Christology theories. The different early Christian conceptions may be found in him. Basilides
did not admit a real union between Christ and Jesus; but it is interesting to see how the Pauline Epistles caused
the theologians to view the sufferings of Christ as necessarily based on the assumption of sinful flesh, that is, to
deduce from the sufferings that Christ has assumed sinful flesh. The Basilidean Christology will prove to be a
peculiar preliminary stage of the later ecclesiastical Christology. The anniversary of the baptism of Christ was
to the Basilideans as the day of the ἐπιφάνεια, a high festival day (see Clem., Strom. I. 21. 146): they fixed it for
the 6th (2nd) January. And in this also the Catholic Church has followed the Gnosis. The real docetic Christology
as represented by Saturninus (and Marcion) was radically opposed to the tradition, and struck out the birth of
Jesus, as well as the first 30 years of his life. An accurate exposition of the Gnostic Christologies, which would
carry us too far here, (see especially Tertull., de carne Christi,) would shew that a great part of the questions
which occupy Church theologians till the present day were already raised by the Gnostics; for example, what
happened to the body of Christ after the resurrection? (see the doctrines of Apelles and Hermogenes); what
significance the appearance of Christ had for the heavenly and Satanic powers? what meaning belongs to his
sufferings, although there was no real suffering for the heavenly Christ, but only for Jesus? etc. In no other point
do the anticipations in the Gnostic dogmatic stand out so plainly; (see the system of Origen; many passages
212
(i) The conversion of the ἐκκλησία (it was no innovation to regard the heavenly Church
as an Æon) into the college of the pneumatic, who alone, in virtue of their psychological
endowment, are capable of Gnosis and the divine life, while the others, likewise in virtue of
their constitution, as hylic perish. The Valentinians, and probably many other Gnostics
also, distinguished between pneumatic, psychic and hylic. They regarded the psychic as
262
capable of a certain blessedness, and of a corresponding certain knowledge of the supersens-
ible, the latter being obtained through Pistis, that is, through Christian faith.218
bearing on the subject will be found in the third and fourth volumes of this work, to which readers are referred).
The Catholic Church has learned but little from the Gnostics, that is, from the earliest theologians in Christendom,
in the doctrine of God and the world, but very much in Christology; and who can maintain that she has ever
completely overcome the Gnostic doctrine of the two natures, nay, even Docetism? Redemption viewed in the
historical person of Jesus, that is, in the appearance of a Divine being on the earth, but the person divided and
the real history of Jesus explained away and made inoperative, is the signature of the Gnostic Christology—this,
however, is also the danger of the system of Origen and those systems that are dependent on him (Docetism)
as well as, in another way, the danger of the view of Tertullian and the Westerns (doctrine of two natures). Finally,
it should be noted that the Gnosis always made a distinction between the supreme God and Christ, but that,
from the religious position, it had no reason for emphasising that distinction. For to many Gnostics, Christ was
in a certain way the manifestation of the supreme God himself, and therefore in the more popular writings of
the Gnostics (see the Acta Johannis) expressions are applied to Christ which seem to identify him with God.
The same thing is true of Marcion and also of Valentinus (see his Epistle in Clem., Strom. II. 20. 114: εἷς δὲ ἐστιν
ἀγαθός, οὗ πάρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ φανέρωσις). This Gnostic estimate of Christ has undoubtedly had a mighty
influence on the later Church development of Christology. We might say without hesitation that to most Gnostics
Christ was a πνεῦμα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί. The details of the life, sufferings and resurrection of Jesus are found
in many Gnostics transformed, complemented and arranged in the way in which Celsus (Orig., c. Cels. I. II.)
required for an impressive and credible history. Celsus indicates how everything must have taken place if Christ
had been a God in human form. The Gnostics in part actually narrate it so. What an instructive coincidence!
How strongly the docetic view itself was expressed in the case of Valentinus, and how the exaltation of Jesus
above the earthly was thereby to be traced hack to his moral struggle, is shewn in the remarkable fragment of a
letter (in Clem., Strom. III. 7. 59): Πάντα ὑπομείνας ἣγκρατὴς τὴν θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο. ἣσθιεν γὰρ καὶ
ἔπιεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα, ποσαύτη ἦν αὐτῷ τῆς ἐγκρατείας δύναμις, ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν
τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οῦκ εἶχεν. In this notion, however, there is more sense and historical
meaning than in that of the later ecclesiastical aphtharto-docetism.
218 The Gnostic distinction of classes of men was connected with the old distinction of stages in spiritual
understanding, but has its basis in a law of nature. There were again empirical and psychological views—they
must have been regarded as very important, had not the Gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philo-
sophic schools—which made the universalism of the Christian preaching of salvation appear unacceptable to
the Gnostics. Moreover, the transformation of religion into a doctrine of the school, or into a mystery cult, always
resulted in the distinction of the knowing from the profanum vulgus. But in the Valentinian assumption that
213
(k) The rejection of the entire early christian eschatology, especially the second coming
of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and Christ’s Kingdom of glory on the earth; and, in
connection with this, the assertion that the deliverance of the spirit from the sensuous can
be expected only from the future, while the spirit enlightened about itself already possesses
immortality, and only awaits its introduction into the pneumatic pleroma.219
the common Christians as psychical occupy an intermediate stage, and that they are saved by faith, we have a
compromise which completely lowered the Gnosis to a scholastic doctrine within Christendom. Whether and
in what way the Catholic Church maintained the significance of Pistis as contrasted with Gnosis, and in what
way the distinction between the knowing (priests) and the laity was there reached will be examined in its proper
place. It should be noted, however, that the Valentinian, Ptolemy, ascribes freedom of will to the psychic (which
the pneumatic and hylic lack), and therefore has sketched by way of by-work a theology for the psychical beside
that for the pneumatic, which exhibits striking harmonies with the exoteric system of Origen. The denial by
Gnosticism of free will, and therewith of moral responsibility, called forth very decided contradiction. Gnosticism,
that is, the acute hellenising of Christianity, was wrecked in the Church on free will, the Old Testament and
eschatology.
219 The greatest deviation of Gnosticism from tradition appears in eschatology, along with the rejection of
the Old Testament and the separation of the creator of the world from the supreme God. Upon the whole our
sources say very little about the Gnostic eschatology. This, however, is not astonishing; for the Gnostics had not
much to say on the matter, or what they had to say found expression in their doctrine of the genesis of the world,
and that of redemption through Christ. We learn that the regula of Apelles closed with the words: ἀνέπτη εἰς
οὐρανὸν ὅθεν καὶ ἧκε, instead of ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. We know that Marcion, who may
already he mentioned here, referred the whole eschatological expectations of early Christian times to the province
of the god of the Jews, and we hear that Gnostics (Valentinians) retained the words σαρκος ἀνάστασιν, but in-
terpreted them to mean that one must rise in this life, that is perceive the truth (thus the “resurrectio a mortuis”,
that is, exaltation above the earthly, took the place of the “resurrectio mortuorum”; see Iren. II. 31. 2: Tertull.,
de resurr. carnis, 19). While the Christian tradition placed a great drama at the close of history, the Gnostics
regard the history itself as the drama, which virtually closes with the (first) appearing of Christ. It may not have
been the opinion of all Gnostics that the resurrection has already taken place, yet for most of them the expectations
of the future seem to have been quite faint, and above all without significance. The life is so much included in
knowledge, that we nowhere in our sources find a strong expression of hope in a life beyond (it is different in
the earliest Gnostic documents preserved in the Coptic language), and the introduction of the spirits into the
Pleroma appears very vague and uncertain. But it is of great significance that those Gnostics who, according to
their premises, required a real redemption from the world as the highest good, remained finally in the same
uncertainty and religious despondency with regard to this redemption, as characterised the Greek philosophers.
A religion which is a philosophy of religion remains at all times fixed to this life, however strongly it may em-
phasise the contrast between the spirit and its surroundings, and however ardently it may desire redemption.
The desire for redemption is unconsciously replaced by the thinker’s joy in his knowledge, which allays the desire
(Iren., III. 15. 2: “Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in cœlo, neque in terra putat
214
In addition to what has been mentioned here, we must finally fix our attention on the
ethics of Gnosticism. Like the ethics of all systems which are based on the contrast between 263
the sensuous and spiritual elements of human nature, that of the Gnostics took a twofold
direction. On the one hand, it sought to suppress and uproot the sensuous, and thus became
strictly ascetic (imitation of Christ as motive of asceticism;220 Christ and the Apostles rep-
resented as ascetics);221 on the other hand, it treated the sensuous element as indifferent,
and so became libertine, that is, conformed to the world. The former was undoubtedly the
264
more common, though there are credible witnesses to the latter; the frequentissimum
collegium in particular, the Valentinians, in the days of Irenæus and Tertullian, did not
vigorously enough prohibit a lax and world-conforming morality;222 and among the Syrian
and Egyptian Gnostics there were associations which celebrated the most revolting orgies.223
As the early Christian tradition summoned to a strict renunciation of the world and to self-
control, the Gnostic asceticism could not but make an impression at the first; but the dual-
istic basis on which it rested could not fail to excite suspicion as soon as one was capable of
examining it.224
se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio et supercilio incedit
gallinacei elationem habens . . . . Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse jam dicunt
eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum”). As in every philosophy of religion, an element of free
thinking appears very plainly here also. The eschatological hopes can only have been maintained in vigour by
the conviction that the world is of God. But we must finally refer to the fact that, even in eschatology, Gnosticism
only drew the inferences from views which were pressing into Christendom from all sides, and were in an in-
creasing measure endangering its hopes of the future. Besides, in some Valentinian circles, the future life was
viewed as a condition of education, as a progress through the series of the (seven) heavens; i.e., purgatorial ex-
periences in the future were postulated. Both afterwards, from the time of Origen, forced their way into the
doctrine of the Church (purgatory, different ranks in heaven). Clement and Origen being throughout strongly
influenced by the Valentinian eschatology.
220 See the passage Clem., Strom. III. 6, 49, which is given above, p. 239.
221 Cf. the Apocryphal Acts of Apostles and diverse legends of Apostles (e.g., in Clem. Alex.).
222 More can hardly be said: the heads of schools were themselves earnest men. No doubt statements such as
that of Heracleon seem to have led to laxity in the lower sections of the collegium: ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν
τῇ πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ· ἡ μὲν οὐν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογια καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἥν μόνην
ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοί, οὐχ ὑγιῶς δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκρισαὶ ὁμολογεῖν.
223 See Epiph. h. 26, and the statements in the Coptic Gnostic works. (Schmidt, Texte u. Unters. VIII, I. 2, p.
566 ff.)
224 There arose in this way an extremely difficult theoretical problem, but practically a convenient occasion
for throwing asceticism altogether overboard, with the Gnostic asceticism, or restricting it to easy exercises.
This is not the place for entering into the details. Shibboleths, such as φεύγετε οὐ τὰς φύσεις ἀλλὰ τὰς γνώμας
τῶν κακὧν, may have soon appeared. It may be noted here, that the asceticism with gained the victory in
215
Monasticism was not really that which sprang from early Christian, but from Greek impulses, without, of course,
being based on the same principle. Gnosticism anticipated the future even here. That could be much more clearly
proved in the history of the worship. A few points which are of importance for the history of dogma may be
mentioned here: (1) The Gnostics viewed the traditional sacred actions (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) entirely
as mysteries, and applied to them the terminology of the mysteries (some Gnostics set them aside as psychic);
but in doing so they were only drawing the inference from changes which were then in process throughout
Christendom. To what extent the later Gnosticism in particular was interested in sacraments may he studied
especially in the Pistis Sophia and the other Coptic works of the Gnostics, which Carl Schmidt has edited; see,
for example, Pistis Sophia, p. 233. “Dixit Jesus ad suos μαθήτας: ἀμην, dixi vobis, haud adduxi quidquam in
κόσμον veniens nisi hunc ignem et hanc aquam et hoc vinum et hunc sanguinem.” (2) They increased the holy
actions by the addition of new ones, repeated baptisms (expiations), anointing with oil, sacrament of confirmation
(ἀπολύτρωσις); see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren. I. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336–343, and
cf. the πυκνῶς μετανοοῦσι in the delineation of the Shepherd of Hermas. Mand XI. (3) Marcus represented the
wine in the Lord’s Supper as actual blood in consequence of the act of blessing: see Iren., I. 13. 2: ποτήρια οἴνῳ
κακραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχαριστεῖν. Καὶ ἐπί πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπικλῆσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ
ἐρυθρὰ ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ, ὡς δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὸρ τὰ ὅλα χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν ἐκείνῳ
τῷ ποτηρίῳ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὑπεριμείρεσθαι τοὺς παρόντας ἐξ ἐκείν9;υ γεύσασθαι τοῦ πόματος,
ἵνα καὶ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐπομβρήσῃ ἡ διὰ τοῦ μάγου τούτου κληϊζομένη χάρις. Marcus was indeed a charlatan; but
religious charlatanry afterwards became very earnest, and was certainly taken earnestly by many adherents of
Marcus. The transubstantiation idea in reference to the elements in the mysteries is also plainly expressed in
the Excerpt. ex. Theodot. § 82: καὶ ὁ ἄρτος καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον ἁγιάζεται τῇ δύναμει τοῦ ὀνόματος οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ όντα
κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον οἷα ἐλήφθη, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει εἰς δύναμιν πνευματικήν μεταβέβληται (that is, not into a new
super-terrestrial material, not into the real body of Christ, but into a spiritual power) οὕτως καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ
ἐξορκιζόμενον καὶ τὸ βαπτίσμα γινόμενον οὐ μόνον χωρεῖ τὸ χεῖρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγιασμὸν πποσλαμβάνει.
Irenæus possessed a liturgical handbook of the Marcionites, and communicates many sacramental formulæ
from it (I. c. 13 sq.). In my treatise on the Pistis Sophia (Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. pp. 59–94) I think I have shewn
(“The common Christian and the Catholic elements of the Pistis Sophia”) to what extent Gnosticism anticipated
Catholicism as a system of doctrine and an institute of worship. These results have been strengthened by Carl
Schmidt (Texte u. Unters. VIII. I. 2). Even purgatory, prayers for the dead, and many other things raised in
speculative questions and definitely answered, are found in those Coptic Gnostic writings and are then met with
again in Catholicism. One general remark may be permitted in conclusion. The Gnostics were not interested
in apologetics, and that is a very significant fact. The πνεῦμα in man was regarded by them as a supernatural
principle, and on that account they are free from all rationalism and moralistic dogmatism. For that very reason
they are in earnest with the idea of revelation, and do not attempt to prove it or convert its contests into natural
truths. They did endeavour to prove that their doctrines were Christian, but renounced all proof that revelation
is the truth (proofs from antiquity). One will not easily find in the case of the Gnostics themselves the revealed
truth described as philosophy, or morality as the philosophic life. If we compare, therefore, the first and funda-
mental system of Catholic doctrine, that of Origen, with the system of the Gnostics, we shall find that Origen,
216
Literature.—The writings of Justin (his syntagma against heresies has not been pre-
served), Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, 265
Philastrius and Theodoret; cf. Volkmar, Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1885.
Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, 1875; also Die Quellen der altesten Ket-
zergeschichte, 1875.
Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik d. Gesch. Gnostic, 1873 (continued i. D. Ztschr. f. d. hist.
Theol. 1874, and in Der Schrift de Apellis gnosi monarch. 1874). 266
Of Gnostic writings we possess the book Pistis Sophia, the writings contained in the
Coptic Cod. Brucianus, and the Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora; also numerous fragments, in
connection with which Hilgenfeld especially deserves thanks, but which still require a more
complete selecting and a more thorough discussion (see Grabe, Spicilegium T. I. II. 1700.
Heinrici, Die Valentin. Gnosis, u. d. H. Schrift, 1871).
On the (Gnostic) Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, see Zahn, Acta Job. 1880, and the
great work of Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, I. Vol., 1883; II. Vol., 1887. (See
also Lipsius, Quellen d. röm. Petrussage, 1872.)
Neander, Genet. Entw. d. vornehmsten gnostischen Systeme, 1818.
Matter, Hist. crit. du gnosticisme, 2 Vols., 1828.
Baur, Die Christl. Gnosis, 1835.
Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. und Gruber’s Allg. Encykl. 71 Bd. 1860.
Moeller, Geschichte d. Kosmologie i. d. Griech. K. bis auf Origenes. 1860.
King, The Gnostics and their remains, 1873.
Mansel, The Gnostic heresies, 1875.
Jacobi, Art. “Gnosis” in Herzog’s Real Encykl. 2nd Edit.
Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, 1884, where the more recent
special literature concerning individual Gnostics is quoted.
Lipsius, Art. “Valentinus” in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography.
Harnack, Art. “Valentinus” in the Encykl. Brit.
Harnack, Pistis Sophia in the Texte und Unters. VII. 2. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische
Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus (Texte und Unters. VIII. 1. 2).
Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts, 2 parts,
188o, 1883.
Renan, History of the Origins of Christianity. Vols. V. VI. VII.
270
like Basilides and Valentinus, was a philosopher of revelation, but that he had besides a second element which
had its origin in apologetics.
217
Chapter V. Marcion’s Attempt to Set Aside the Old Testament Foundation of…
CHAPTER V
MARCION’S ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE THE OLD TESTAMENT

FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY, TO PURIFY TRADITION, AND TO
REFORM CHRISTENDOM ON THE BASIS OF THE PAULINE GOSPEL.
Marcion cannot be numbered among the Gnostics in the strict sense of the word.225
For (1) he was not guided by any speculatively scientific, or even by an apologetic, but by a
soteriological interest.226 (2) He therefore put all emphasis on faith, not on Gnosis.227 (3)
In the exposition of his ideas he neither applied the elements of any Semitic religious wisdom,
nor the methods of the Greek philosophy of religion.228 (4) He never made the distinction
between an esoteric and an exoteric form of religion. He rather clung to the publicity of the
268
225 He belonged to Pontus and was a rich shipowner: about 139 he came to Rome already a Christian, and
for a short time belonged to the church there. As he could not succeed in his attempt to reform it, he broke away
from it about 144. He founded a church of his own and developed a very great activity. He spread his views by
numerous journeys, and communities bearing his name very soon arose in every province of the Empire
(Adamantius, de recta in deum fide, Origen, Opp. ed. Delarue I. p. 809: Epiph. h. 42. p. 668. ed. Oehler). They
were ecclesiastically organised (Tertull., de præscr. 41, and adv. Marc. IV. 5) and possessed bishops, presbyters,
etc. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 46: de Mart. Palæst. X. 2: Les Bas and Waddington, Inscript. Grecq. et Latines rec. en
Grêce et en Asie Min. Vol. III. No. 2558). Justin (Apol. 1. 26) about 150 tells us that Marcion’s preaching had
spread κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων, and by the year 155, the Marcionites were already numerous in Rome (Iren.
III. 34). Up to his death, however, Marcion did not give up the purpose of winning the whole of Christendom,
and therefore again and again sought connection with it (Iren. I. c.; Tertull., de præscr. 30), likewise his disciples
(see the conversation of Apelles with Rhodon in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5, and the dialogue of the Marcionites with
Adamantius). It is very probable that Marcion had fixed the ground features of his doctrine, and had laboured
for its propagation, even before he came to Rome. In Rome the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo had a great influence on
him, so that we can even yet perceive, and clearly distinguish the Gnostic element in the form of the Marcionite
doctrine transmitted to us.
226 “Sufficit,” said the Marcionites, “unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et præcipua
bonitate sua” (Tertull. adv. Marc. I. 17).
227 Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, declared (Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5) σωθήσεσθαι τοὺς ἐπί τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον
ἡλπικότας, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὐρίσκωνται.
228 This is an extremely important point. Marcion rejected all allegories. (See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19. 21.
22: III. 5. 6. 14. 19: IV. 15. 20: V. 1; Orig., Comment. in Matth. T. XV. 3 Opp. III. p. 655: in. ep. ad. Rom. Opp.
IV. p. 494 sq.: Adamant., Sect. I, Orig. Opp. I. pp. 808. 817; Ephr. Syrus. hymn. 36 Edit. Benedict, p. 520 sq.) and
describes this method as an arbitrary one. But that simply means that he perceived and avoided the transform-
ation of the Gospel into Hellenic philosophy. No philosophic formulæ are found in any of his statements that
have been handed down to us. But what is still more important, none-of his early opponents have attributed to
218
preaching, and endeavoured to reform Christendom, in opposition to the attempts at

founding schools for those who knew and mystery cults for such as were in quest of initiation.
It was only after the failure of his attempts at reform that he founded churches of his own,
in which brotherly equality, freedom from all ceremonies, and strict evangelical discipline
were to rule.229 Completely carried away with the novelty, uniqueness and grandeur of the 269
Pauline Gospel of the grace of God in Christ, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the
Gospel, and especially its union with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a
backsliding from, the truth.230 He accordingly supposed that it was necessary to make the
Marcion a system, as they did to Basilides and Valentinus. There can be no doubt that Marcion did not set up
any system (the Armenian, Esnik, first gives a Marcionite system, but that is a late production, see my essay in
the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1896. p. 80 f.). He was just as far from having any apologetic or rationalistic interest.
Justin (Apol. I. 58) says of the Marcionites; ἀπόδειξιν μηδεμίαν περὶ ὧν λέγουσιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀλόγως ὡς
ὑπὸ λύκου ἀρ́ νες συνηπρασμένοι κτλ. Tertullian again and again casts in the teeth of Marcion that he has adduced
no proof. See I. 11 sq.: III. 2. 3. 4: IV. 11: “Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem,
quæ suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem.” Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 4) says of two prominent
genuine disciples of Marcion: μὴ εὑρίοκοντες τὴν διαίρεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνος, δυὸ ἀρχὰς
ἀπεφήναντο ψιλῶς καὶ ἀναποδείκτῶς. Of Apelles, the most important of Marcion’s disciples who laid aside
the Gnostic, borrows of his master, we have the words (l. c.): μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαστον,
ὡς πεπίστευκε, διαμένειν. Σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐτί τὸν ἐσταρωμένον ἡλπικότας ἀπεφαίνετο, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν
ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὐρίσκωνται . . . . τὸ δὲ πῶς ἔστι μία ἀρχή, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν, οὕτω δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον . . . .
μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγέννητος θεός, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν. It was Marcion’s purpose therefore to give all
value to faith alone, to make it dependent on its own convincing power, and avoid all philosophic paraphrase
and argument. The contrast in which he placed the Christian blessing of salvation, has in principle nothing in
common with the contract in which Greek philosophy viewed the summum bonum. Finally, it may he pointed
out that Marcion introduced no new elements Æons, Matter, etc.) into his evangelic views, and leant on no
Oriental religious science. The later Marcionite speculations about matter (see the account of Esnik) should not
be charged upon the master himself, as is manifest from the second book of Tertullian against Marcion. The
assumption that the creator of the world created it out of a materia subjacens is certainly found in Marcion (see
Tertull., 1. 15; Hippol., Philos. X. 19); but he speculated no further about it, and that assumption itself was not
rejected, for example, by Clem. Alex. (Strom. II. 16. 74: Photius on Clement’s Hypotyposes). Marcion did not
really speculate even about the good God; yet see Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 14. 15: IV. 7: “Mundus ille
superior”—“cœlum tertium.”
229 Tertull., de præscr. 41. sq.; the delineation refers chiefly to the Marcionites (see Epiph. h. 42. c. 3. 4, and
Esnik’s account) on the Church system of Marcion, see also Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 14, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29: III. 1,
22: IV. 5, 34: V. 7, 10, 15, 18.
230 Marcion himself originally belonged to the main body of the Church, as is expressly declared by Tertullian
and Epiphanius, and attested by one of his own letters.
219
sharp antitheses of Paul, law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit,
sin and righteousness, death and life, that is the Pauline criticism of the Old Testament reli-
gion, the foundation of his religious views, and to refer them to two principles, the righteous
and wrathful god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator
of the world, and the God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and
mercy.231 This Paulinism in its religious strength, but without dialectic, without the Jewish
Christian view of history, and detached from the soil of the Old Testament, was to him the
true Christianity. Marcion, like Paul, felt that the religious value of a statutory law with
commandments and ceremonies, was very different from that of a uniform law of love.232
Accordingly, he had a capacity for appreciating the Pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance
on the unmerited grace of God which is revealed in Christ. But Marcion shewed himself to
be a Greek influenced by the religious spirit of the time, by changing the ethical contrast of
270
the good and legal into the contrast between the infinitely exalted spiritual and the sensible
which is subject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in the world and,
consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the world and history belong to God, by
an empirical view of the world and the course of events in it,233 a view to which he was no
doubt also led by the severity of the early Christian estimate of the world. Yet to him system-
atic speculation about the final causes of the contrast actually observed, was by no means
the main thing. So far as he himself ventured on such a speculation he seems to have been
influenced by the Syrian Cerdo. The numerous contradictions which arise as soon as one
attempts to reduce Marcion’s propositions to a system, and the fact that his disciples tried
all possible conceptions of the doctrine of principles, and defined the relation of the two
Gods very differently, are the clearest proof that Marcion was a religious character, that he
had in general nothing to do with principles, but with living beings whose power he felt,
and that what he ultimately saw in the Gospel was not an explanation of the world, but re-
demption from the world,234—redemption from a world which even in the best that it can
231 Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2. 19: “Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis . . . ex
diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum.” II. 28, 29: IV. 1.
1. 6: “Dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum
atque optimum.” Iren. I. 27. 2.
232 Marcion maintained that the good God is not to be feared. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 27: “Atque adeo præ se
ferunt Marcionitæ: quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem
diligitur.” To the question why they did not sin if they did not fear their God, the Marcionites answered in the
words of Rom. VI. 1. 2. (l. c.).
233 Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2: II. 5.
234 See the passage adduced, p. 267, note 2, and Tertull., I. 19: “Immo inquiunt Marcionitæ, deus poster, etsi
non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu.” The very fact that
different theological tendencies (schools) appeared within Marcionite Christianity and were mutually tolerant,
220
offer has nothing that can reach the height of the blessing bestowed in Christ.235 Special
attention may be called to the following particulars.
1. Marcion explained the Old Testament in its literal sense and rejected every allegorical
271
interpretation. He recognised it as the revelation of the creator of the world and the god of
the Jews, but placed it, just on that account, in sharpest contrast to the Gospel. He demon-
strated the contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work
(the ἀνσιθἑσεις).236 In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern
justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness. The law which rules nature
and man appeared to him to accord with the characteristics of this god and the kind of law
revealed by him, and therefore it seemed credible to him that this god is the creator and
lord of the world (κοτμοκράτωρ). As the law which governs the world is inflexible and yet,
on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again brutal, and as the law of the Old
Testament exhibits the same features, so the god of creation was to Marcion a being who
united in himself the whole gradations of attributes from justice to malevolence, from ob-
stinacy to inconsistency.237 Into this conception of the creator of the world, the character-
istic of which is that it cannot be systematised, could easily be fitted the Syrian Gnostic
theory which regards him as an evil being, because he belongs to this world and to matter.
Marcion did not accept it in principle,238 but touched it lightly and adopted certain infer-
proves that the Marcionite Church itself was not based on a formulated system of faith. Apelles expressly conceded
different forms of doctrine in Christendom, on the basis of faith in the Crucified and a common holy ideal of
life (see p. 268).
235 Tertull. I. 13. “Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitæ convertuntur ad destructionem operum
creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?” The Marcionites (Iren. IV. 34. 1) put the
question to their ecclesiastical opponents: “Quid novi attulit dominus veniens?” and therewith caused them no
small embarrassment.
236 On these see Tertull. I. 19: II. 28. 29: IV. I. 4. 6: Epiph.; Hippol. Philos. VII. 30; the book was used by other
Gnostics also (it is very probable that 1 Tim. VI. 20, an addition to the Epistle—refers to Marcion’s Antitheses).
Apelles, Marcion’s disciple, composed a similar work under the title of “Syllogismi.” Marcion’s Antitheses, which
may still in part be reconstructed from Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, Ephraem, etc., possessed canonical
authority in the Marcionite church, and therefore took the place of the Old Testament. That is quite clear from
Tertull., I. 19 (cf. IV. 1): Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt
negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc
hæresim.
237 Tertullian has frequently pointed to the contradictions in the Marcionite conception of the god of creation.
These contradictions, however, vanish as soon as we regard Marcion’s god from the point of view that he is like
his revelation in the Old Testament.
238 The creator of the world is indeed to Marcion “malignus,” but not “malus.”
221
ences.239 On the basis of the Old Testament and of empirical observation, Marcion divided
men into two classes, good and evil, though he regarded them all, body and soul, as creatures
of the demiurge. The good are those who strive to fulfil the law of the demiurge. These are
272
outwardly better than those who refuse him obedience. But the distinction found here is
not the decisive one. To yield to the promptings of Divine grace is the only decisive distinc-
tion, and those just men will shew themselves less susceptible to the manifestation of the
truly good than sinners. As Marcion held the Old Testament to be a book worthy of belief,
though his disciple, Apelles, thought otherwise, he referred all its predictions to a Messiah
whom the creator of the world is yet to send, and who, as a war-like hero, is to set up the
earthly kingdom of the “just” God.240
2. Marcion placed the good God of love in opposition to the creator of the world.241
This God has only been revealed in Christ. He was absolutely unknown before Christ,“Deus
incognitus” was likewise a standing expression. They maintained against all attacks the reli-
gious position that, from the nature of the case, believers only can know God, and that this
is quite sufficient (Tertull., I. 11.) and men were in every respect strange to him.242 Out of
pure goodness and mercy, for these are the essential attributes of this God who judges not
and is not wrathful, he espoused the cause of those beings who were foreign to him, as he
could not bear to have them any longer tormented by their just and yet malevolent lord.243
The God of love appeared in Christ and proclaimed a new kingdom (Tertull., adv. Marc.
III. 24. fin.). Christ called to himself the weary and heavy laden,244 and proclaimed to them
that he would deliver them from the fetters of their lord and from the world. He shewed
mercy to all while he sojourned on the earth, and did in every respect the opposite of what
273
the creator of the world had done to men. They who believed in the creator of the world
nailed him to the cross. But in doing so they were unconsciously serving his purpose, for
239 Marcion touched on it when he taught that the “visibilia” belonged to the god of creation, but the
“invisibilia” to the good God (I. 16). He adopted the consequences, inasmuch as he taught docetically about
Christ, and only assumed a deliverance of the human soul.
240 See especially the third book of Tertull. adv. Marcion.
241 “Solius bonitatis,” “deus melior,” were Marcion’s standing expressions for him.
242 Marcion firmly emphasised this and appealed to passages in Paul; see Tertull. I. 11. 19. 23: “Scio dicturos,
atqui hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria
et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur.”
The Church Fathers therefore declared that Marcion’s good God was a thief and a robber. See also Celsus, in
Orig. VI. 53.
243 See Esnik’s account, which, however, is to be used cautiously.
244 Marcion has strongly emphasised the respective passages in Luke’s Gospel: see his Antitheses, and his
comments on the Gospel as presented by Tertullian (1. IV).
222
his death was the price by which the God of love purchased men from the creator of the
world.245 He who places his hope in the Crucified can now be sure of escaping from the
power of the creator of the world, and of being translated into the kingdom of the good
God. But experience shews that, like the Jews, men who are virtuous according to the law
of the creator of the world, do not allow themselves to be converted by Christ; it is rather
sinners who accept his message of redemption. Christ, therefore, rescued from the under-
world, not the righteous men of the Old Testament (Iren. I. 27. 3), but the sinners who were
disobedient to the creator of the world. If the determining thought of Marcion’s view of
Christianity is here again very clearly shewn, the Gnostic woof cannot fail to be seen in the
proposition that the good God delivers only the souls, not the bodies of believers. The anti-
thesis of spirit and matter, appears here as the decisive one, and the good God of love becomes
the God of the spirit, the Old Testament god the god of the flesh. In point of fact, Marcion
seems to have given such a turn to the good God’s attributes of love and incapability of
wrath, as to make Him the apathetic, infinitely exalted Being, free from all affections. The
contradiction in which Marcion is here involved is evident, because he taught expressly that
the spirit of man is in itself just as foreign to the good God as his body. But the strict asceti-
cism which Marcion demanded as a Christian, could have had no motive without the Greek
assumption of a metaphysical contrast of flesh and Spirit, which in fact was also apparently
the doctrine of Paul.
274
3. The relation in which Marcion placed the two Gods, appears at first sight to be one
of equal rank.246 Marcion himself, according to the most reliable witnesses, expressly asserted
that both were uncreated, eternal, etc. But if we look more closely we shall see that in Mar-
cion’s mind there can be no thought of equality. Not only did he himself expressly declare
that the creator of the world is a self-contradictory being of limited knowledge and power,
but the whole doctrine of redemption shews that he is a power subordinate to the good God.
We need not stop to enquire about the details, but it is certain that the creator of the world
formerly knew nothing of the existence of the good God, that he is in the end completely
powerless against him, that he is overcome by him, and that history in its issue with regard
to man is determined solely by its relation to the good God. The just god appears at the end
of history, not as an independent being hostile to the good God, but as one subordinate to
245 That can be plainly read in Esnik, and must have been thought by Marcion himself, as he followed Paul
(see Tertull., 1. V. and I. 11). Apelles also emphasised the death upon the cross. Marcion’s conception of the
purchase can indeed no longer be ascertained in its details. But see Adamant., de recta in deum fide, sect. I. It
is one of his theoretic contradictions that the good God who is exalted above righteousness should yet purchase
men.
246 Tertull. I. 6: “Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.”
223
him,247 so that some scholars, such as Neander, have attempted to claim for Marcion a
doctrine of one principle, and to deny that he ever held the complete independence of the
creator of the world, the creator of the world being simply an angel of the good God. This
inference may certainly be drawn with little trouble, as the result of various considerations,
275
but it is forbidden by reliable testimony. The characteristic of Marcion’s teaching is just this,
that as soon as we seek to raise his ideas from the sphere of practical considerations to that
of a consistent theory, we come upon a tangled knot of contradictions. The theoretic con-
tradictions are explained by the different interests which here cross each other in Marcion.
In the first place, he was consciously dependent on the Pauline theology, and was resolved
to defend everything which he held to be Pauline. Secondly, he was influenced by the contrast
in which he saw the ethical powers involved. This contrast seemed to demand a metaphys-
ical basis, and its actual solution seemed to forbid such a foundation. Finally, the theories
of Gnosticism, the paradoxes of Paul, the recognition of the duty of strictly mortifying the
flesh, suggested to Marcion the idea that the good God was the exalted God of the spirit,
and the just god the god of the sensuous, of the flesh. This view, which involved the principle
of a metaphysical dualism, had something very specious about it, and to its influence we
must probably ascribe the fact that Marcion no longer attempted to derive the creator of
the world from the good God. His disciples who had theoretical interests in the matter, no
doubt noted the contradictions. In order to remove them, some of these disciples advanced
to a doctrine of three principles, the good God, the just creator of the world, the evil god,
by conceiving the creator of the world sometimes as an independent being, sometimes as
one dependent on the good God. Others reverted to the common dualism, God of the
spirit and God of matter. But Apelles, the most important of Marcion’s disciples, returned
to the creed of the one God (μία ἀρχὴ), and conceived the creator of the world and Satan
as his angels, without departing from the fundamental thought of the master, but rather
247 Here Tertull., I. 27, 28, is of special importance; see also II. 28; IV. 29 (on Luke XII. 41–46): IV. 30. Marcion’s
idea was this. The good God does not judge or punish; but He judges in so far as he keeps evil at a distance from
Him: it remains foreign to Him. “Marcionitæ interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici
ilium quasi ab oculis”. “Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus
ponere”. But what is the end of him who is thus rejected? “Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur”. We
might think with Tertullian that the creator of the world would receive sinners with joy: but this is the god of
the law who punishes sinners. The issue is twofold: the heaven of the good God, and the hell of the creator of
the world. Either Marcion assumed with Paul that no one can keep the law, or he was silent about the end of
the “righteous” because he had no interest in it. At any rate, the teaching of Marcion closes with an outlook in
which the creator of the world can no longer be regarded as an independent god. Marcion’s disciples (see Esnik)
here developed a consistent theory: the creator of the world violated his own law by killing the righteous Christ,
and was therefore deprived of all his power by Christ.
224
following suggestions which he himself had given.248 Apart from Apelles, who founded a
Church of his own, we hear nothing of the controversies of disciples breaking up the Mar-
cionite church. All those who lived in the faith for which the master had worked—viz., that
276
the laws ruling in nature and history, as well as the course of common legality and righteous-
ness, are the antitheses of the act of Divine mercy in Christ, and that cordial love and believing
confidence have their proper contrasts in self-righteous pride and the natural religion of
the heart,—those who rejected the Old Testament and clung solely to the Gospel proclaimed
by Paul, and finally, those who considered that a strict mortification of the flesh and an
earnest renunciation of the world were demanded in the name of the Gospel, felt themselves
members of the same community, and to all appearance allowed perfect liberty to speculations
about final causes.
4. Marcion had no interest in specially emphasising the distinction between the good
God and Christ, which according to the Pauline Epistles could not be denied. To him Christ
is the manifestation of the good God himself.249 But Marcion taught that Christ assumed
absolutely nothing from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in the
15th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began
277
248 Schools soon arose in the Marcionite church, just as they did later on in the main body of Christendom
(see Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2-4). The different doctrines of principles which were here developed (two,
three, four principles; the Marcionite Marcus’s doctrine of two principles in which the creator of the world is
an evil being, diverges furthest from the Master) explain the different accounts of the Church Fathers about
Marcion’s teaching. The only one of the disciples who really seceded from the Master was Appelles (Tertull., de
præscr. 30). His teaching is therefore the more important, as it shews that it was possible to retain the funda-
mental ideas of Marcion without embracing dualism. The attitude of Apelles to the Old Testament is that of
Marcion in so far as he rejects the book. But perhaps he somewhat modified the strictness of the Master. On the
other hand, he certainly designated much in it as untrue and fabulous. It is remarkable that we meet with a
highly honoured prophetess in the environment of Apelles: in Marcion’s church we hear nothing of such, nay,
it is extremely important as regards Marcion that he has never appealed to the Spirit and to prophets. The
“sanctiores feminæ” (Tertull. V. 8) are not of this nature, nor can we appeals even to V. 15. Moreover, it is hardly
likely that Jerome ad Eph. III. 5, refers to Marcionites. In this complete disregard of early Christian prophecy,
and in his exclusive reliance on literary documents, we see in Marcion a process of despiritualising, that is, a
form of secularisation peculiar to himself. Marcion no longer possessed the early Christian enthusiasm as, for
example, Hermas did.
249 Marcion was fond of calling Christ “Spiritus salutaris.” From the treatise of Tertullian we can prove both
that Marcion distinguished Christ from God, and that he made no distinction (see, for example, I. 11, 14: II. 27:
III. 8, 9, 11: IV. 7). Here again Marcion did not think theologically. What he regarded as specially important
was that God has revealed himself in Christ, “per semetipsum.” Later Marcionites expressly taught Patripassianism,
and have on that account been often grouped with the Sabellians. But other Christologies also arose in Marcion’s
225
his preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum.250 This pronounced docetism which denies
that Jesus was born, or subjected to any human process of development,251 is the strongest
expression of Marcion’s abhorrence of the world. This aversion may have sprung from the
severe attitude of the early Christians toward the world, but the inference which Marcion
here draws, shews that this feeling was, in his case, united with the Greek estimate of spirit
and matter. But Marcion’s docetism is all the more remarkable that, under Paul’s guidance,
he put a high value on the fact of Christ’s death upon the cross. Here also is a glaring con-
tradiction which his later disciples laboured to remove. This much, however, is unmistakable,
that Marcion succeeded in placing the greatness and uniqueness of redemption through
Christ in the clearest light, and in beholding this redemption in the person of Christ, but
chiefly in his death upon the cross.
5. Marcion’s eschatology is also quite rudimentary. Yet he assumed with Paul that violent
attacks were yet in store for the Church of the good God on the part of the Jewish Christ of
the future, the Antichrist. He does not seem to have taught a visible return of Christ, but,
in spite of the omnipotence and goodness of God, he did teach a twofold issue of history.
The idea of a deliverance of all men, which seems to follow from his doctrine of boundless
grace, was quite foreign to him. For this very reason he could not help actually making the
good God the judge, though in theory he rejected the idea, in order not to measure the will
and acts of God by a human standard. Along with the fundamental proposition of Marcion,
that God should be conceived only as goodness and grace, we must take into account the
278
strict asceticism which he prescribed for the Christian communities, in order to see that
that idea of God was not obtained from antinomianism. We know of no Christian community
in the second century which insisted so strictly on renunciation of the world as the Marcion-
ites. No union of the sexes was permitted. Those who were married had to separate ere they
could be received by baptism into the community. The sternest precepts were laid down in
the matter of food and drink. Martyrdom was enjoined; and from the fact that they were
ταλαίπωροι καὶ μισούμενοι in the world, the members were to know that they were disciples
of Christ.252 With all that, the early Christian enthusiasm was wanting.
church, which is again a proof that it was not dependent on scholastic teaching, and therefore could take part
in the later development of doctrines.
250 See the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel.
251 Tertullian informs us sufficiently about this. The body of Christ was regarded by Marcion merely as an
“umbra”, a “phantasma.” His disciples adhered to this, but Apelles first constructed a “doctrine” of the body of
Christ.
252 The strict asceticism of Marcion and the Marcionites is reluctantly acknowledged by the Church Fathers;
see Tertull., de præscr. 30: “Sanctissimus magister”; I. 28, “carni imponit sanctitem.” The strict prohibition of
marriage: I. 29: IV. 11, 17, 29, 34, 38: V. 7, 8, 15, 18; prohibition of food: 1. 14; cynical life: Hippol., Philos. VII.
29; numerous martyrs: Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 21, and frequently elsewhere. Marcion named his adherents (Tertull.
226
6. Marcion defined his position in theory and practice towards the prevailing form of
Christianity, which, on the one hand, shewed throughout its connection with the Old
Testament, and, on the other, left room for a secular ethical code, by assuming that it had
been corrupted by Judaism, and therefore needed a reformation.253 But he could not fail to
note that this corruption was not of recent date, but belonged to the oldest tradition itself.
The consciousness of this moved him to a historical criticism of the whole Christian tradi-
tion.254 Marcion was the first Christian who undertook such a task. Those writings to which
he owed his religious convictions, viz., the Pauline Epistles, furnished the basis for it. He
found nothing in the rest of Christian literature that harmonised with the Gospel of Paul.
But he found in the Pauline Epistles hints which explained to him this result of his observa-
279
tions. The twelve Apostles whom Christ chose did not understand him, but regarded him
as the Messiah of the god of creation.255 And therefore Christ inspired Paul by a special
revelation, lest the Gospel of the grace of God should be lost through falsifications.256 But
IV. 9 36) “συνταλαίπωροι καὶ συμμισούμενοι.” It is questionable whether Marcion himself allowed the repetition
of baptism; it arose in his church. But this repetition is a proof that the prevailing conception of baptism was
not sufficient for a vigorous religious temper.
253 Tertull. I. 20. “Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro
adulteratam recurasse”; see the account of Epiphanius, taken from Hippolytus, about the appearance of Marcion
in Rome (h. 42. 1. 2).
254 Here again we must remember that Marcion appealed neither to a secret tradition nor to the “Spirit,” in
order to appreciate the epoch-making nature of his undertaking.
255 In his estimate of the twelve Apostles Marcion took as his standpoint Gal. II. See Tertull. I. 20: IV. 3
(generally IV. 1-6), V. 3; de præscr. 22, 23. He endeavoured to prove from this chapter that from a misunder-
standing of the words of Christ, the twelve Apostles had proclaimed a different Gospel than that of Paul; they
had wrongly taken the Father of Jesus Christ for the god of creation. It is not quite clear how Marcion conceived
the inward condition of the Apostles during the lifetime of Jesus (see Tertull. III. 22: IV. 3, 39). He assumed that
they were persecuted by the Jews as the preachers of a new God. It is probable, therefore, that he thought of a
gradual obscuring of the preaching of Jesus in the case of the primitive Apostles. They fell hack into Judaism;
see Iren. III. 2. 2. “Apostolos admiscuisse ea quæ sunt legalia salvatoris verbis”; III, 12. 12: “Apostoli quæ sunt
Judæorum sentientes scripserunt” etc.; Tertull. V. 3: “Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi.” The
expositions of Marcion in Tertull. IV. 9. 11, 13, 21, 24, 39: V. 13, shew that he regarded the primitive Apostles
as out and out real Apostles of Christ.
256 The call of Paul was viewed by Marcion as a manifestation of Christ, of equal value with His first appearance
and ministry; see the account of Esnik. “Then for the second time Jesus came down to the lord of the creatures
in the form of his Godhead, and entered into judgment with him on account of his death . . . . And Jesus said
to him: ‘Judgment is between me and thee, let no one be judge but thine own laws . . . . hast thou not written in
this thy law, that he who killeth shall die?’ And he answered, ‘I have so written’ . . . . Jesus said to him, ‘Deliver
thyself therefore into my hands’ . . . . The creator of the world said, ‘Because I have slain thee I give thee a com-
227
even Paul had been understood only by few (by none?). His Gospel had also been misunder-
stood—nay, his Epistles had been falsified in many passages,257 in order to make them teach
the identity of the god of creation and the God of redemption. A new reformation was
therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself entrusted with this commission, and the church
which he gathered recognised this vocation of his to be the reformer.258 He did not appeal
280
to a new revelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As the Pauline Epistles and an authen-
tic εὐαγγέλιον κυρίου were in existence, it was only necessary to purify these from interpol-
ations, and restore the genuine Paulinism which was just the Gospel itself. But it was also
pensation, all those who shall believe on thee, that thou mayest do with them what thou pleasest.’ Then Jesus
left him and carried away Paul, and shewed him the price, and sent him to preach that we are bought with this
price, and that all who believe in Jesus are sold by this just god to the good one.” This is a most instructive account;
for it shews that in the Marcionite schools the Pauline doctrine of reconciliation was transformed into a drama,
and placed between the death of Christ and the call of Paul, and that the Pauline Gospel was based, not directly
on the death of Christ upon the cross, but a theory of it converted into history. On Paul as the one apostle of
the truth, see Tertull. I. 20: III. 5, 14: IV. 2 sq.: IV. 34: V. I. As to the Marcionite theory that the promise to send
the Spirit was fulfilled in the mission of Paul, an indication of the want of enthusiasm among the Marcionites,
see the following page, note 2.
257 Marcion must have spoken ex professo in his Antitheses about the Judaistic corruptions of Paul’s Epistles
and the Gospel. He must also have known Evangelic writings bearing the names of the original Apostles, and
have expressed himself about them (Tertull. IV. 1-6).
258 Marcion’s self-consciousness of being a reformer, and the recognition of this in his church is still not un-
derstood, although his undertaking itself and the facts speak loud enough. (1) The great Marcionite church
called itself after Marcion (Adamant., de recta in deum fide. I. 809; Epiph. h. 42, p. 668, ed. Oehler: Μαρκίων
σοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἐπικέκληνται οἱ ὑπο σοῦ ἡπατημένοι ὡς σεαυτὸν κηρύξαντος καὶ οὐχί Χριστόν. We possess a
Marcionite inscription which begins: συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν). As the Marcionites did not form a school,
but a church, it is of the greatest value for shewing the estimate of the master in this church, that its members
called themselves by his name. (2) The Antitheses of Marcion had a place in the Marcionite canon (see above,
p. 272). This canon therefore embraced a book of Christ, Epistles of Paul, and a book of Marcion, and for that
reason the Antitheses were always circulated with the canon of Marcion. (3) Origen (in Luc. hom. 25. T. III. p.
962) reports as follows: “Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova quædam et
inaudita super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris
et sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion sedet a sinistris. Porro alii legentes:
Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed Apostolum
Paulum.” The estimate of Marcion which appears here is exceedingly instructive. (4) An Arabian writer, who,
it is true, belongs to a later period, reports that Marcionites called their founder “Apostolorum principem.” (5)
Justin, the first opponent of Marcion, classed him with Simon Magus and Menander; that is, with demonic
founders of religion. These testimonies may suffice.
228
necessary to secure and preserve this true Christianity for the future. Marcion, in all prob-
ability, was the first to conceive and, in great measure, to realise the idea of placing
Christendom on the firm foundation of a definite theory of what is Christian—but not of
basing it on a theological doctrine—and of establishing this theory by a fixed collection of
Christian writings with canonical authority.259 He was not a systematic thinker, but he was
more; for he was not only a religious character, but at the same time a man with an organising
281
talent, such as has no peer in the early Church. If we think of the lofty demands he made
on Christians, and, on the other hand, ponder the results that accompanied his activity, we
cannot fail to wonder. Wherever Christians were numerous about the year 160, there must
have been Marcionite communities with the same fixed but free organisation, with the same
canon and the same conception of the essence of Christianity, pre-eminent for the strictness
of their morals and their joy in martyrdom.260 The Catholic Church was then only in process
of growth, and it was long ere it reached the solidity won by the Marcionite church through
the activity of one man, who was animated by a faith so strong that he was able to oppose
his conception of Christianity to all others as the only right one, and who did not shrink
from making selections from tradition instead of explaining it away. He was the first who
laid the firm foundation for establishing what is Christian, because, in view of the absoluteness
282
259 On Marcion’s Gospel see the Introductions to the New Testament and Zahn’s Kanonsgeschichte, Bd. I.,
p. 585 ff. and II., p. 409. Marcion attached no name to his Gospel, which, according to his own testimony, he
produced from the third one of our Canon (Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 2. 3. 4). He called it simply εὐαγγέλιον
(κυρίον), but held that it was the Gospel which Paul had in his mind when he spoke of his Gospel. The later
Marcionites ascribed the authorship of the Gospel partly to Paul, partly to Christ himself, and made further
changes in it. That Marcion chose the Gospel called after Luke should be regarded as a make-shift; for this
Gospel, which is undoubtedly the most Hellenistic of the four Canonical Gospels, and therefore comes nearest
to the Catholic conception of Christianity, accommodated itself in its traditional form but little better than the
other three to Marcionite Christianity. Whether Marcion took it for a basis because in his time it had already
been connected with Paul (or really had a connection with Paul), or whether the numerous narratives about
Jesus as the Saviour of sinners led him to recognise in this Gospel alone a genuine kernel, we do not know.
260 The associations of the Encratites and the community founded by Apelles stood between the main body
of Christendom and the Marcionite church. The description of Celsus (especially V. 61-64 in Orig.) shews the
motley appearance which Christendom presented soon after the middle of the second century. He there mentions
the Marcionites, and a little before (V. 59), the “great Church.” It is very important that Celsus makes the main
distinction consist in this, that some regarded their God as identical with the God of the Jews, whilst others
again declared that “theirs was a different Deity, who is hostile to that of the Jews, and that it was he who had
sent the Son.” (V. 61.)
229
of his faith,261 he had no desire to appeal either to a secret evangelic tradition, or to prophecy,
or to natural religion.
Remarks.—The innovations of Marcion are unmistakable. The way in which he attempted
to sever Christianity from the Old Testament was a bold stroke which demanded the sacrifice
of the dearest possession of Christianity as a religion, viz., the belief that the God of creation
is also the God of redemption. And yet this innovation was partly caused by a religious
conviction, the origin of which must be sought not in heathenism, but on Old Testament
and Christian soil. For the bold Anti-judaist was the disciple of a Jewish thinker, Paul, and
the origin of Marcion’s antinomianism may be ultimately found in the prophets. It will always
be the glory of Marcion in the early history of the Church that he, the born heathen, could
appreciate the religious criticism of the Old Testament religion as formerly exercised by
Paul. The antinomianism of Marcion was ultimately based on the strength of his religious
feeling, on his personal religion as contrasted with all statutory religion. That was also its
basis in the case of the prophets and of Paul, only the statutory religion, which was felt to
be a burden and a fetter, was different in each case. As regards the prophets, it was the outer
sacrificial worship, and the deliverance was the idea of Jehovah’s righteousness. In the case
of Paul, it was the pharisaic treatment of the law, and the deliverance was righteousness by
faith. To Marcion it was the sum of all that the past had described as a revelation of God:
only what Christ had given him was of real value to him. In this conviction he founded a
Church. Before him there was no such thing in the sense of a community firmly united by
a fixed conviction, harmoniously organised, and spread over the whole world. Such a Church
the Apostle Paul had in his mind’s eye, but he was not able to realise it. That in the century
of the great mixture of religion the greatest apparent paradox was actually realised—namely,
283
a Paulinism with two Gods and without the Old Testament; and that this form of Christianity
first resulted in a church which was based not only on intelligible words, but on a definite
conception of the essence of Christianity as a religion, seems to be the greatest riddle which
the earliest history of Christianity presents. But it only seems so. The Greek, whose mind
was filled with certain fundamental features of the Pauline Gospel (law and grace), who was
therefore convinced that in all respects the truth was there, and who on that account took
pains to comprehend the real sense of Paul’s statements, could hardly reach any other results
than those of Marcion. The history of Pauline theology in the Church, a history first of silence,
then of artificial interpretation, speaks loudly enough. And had not Paul really separated
261 One might be tempted to comprise the character of Marcion’s religion in the words, “The God who dwells
in my breast can profoundly excite my inmost being. He who is throned above all my powers can move nothing
outwardly.” But Marcion had the firm assurance that God has done something much greater than move the
world: he has redeemed men from the world, and given them the assurance of this redemption, in the midst of
all oppression and enmity which do not cease.
230
Christianity as religion from Judaism and the Old Testament? Must it not have seemed an
inconceivable inconsistency, if he had clung to the special national relation of Christianity
to the Jewish people, and if he had taught a view of history in which for pædagogic reasons
indeed, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort had appeared as one so entirely differ-
ent? He who was not capable of translating himself into the consciousness of a Jew, and had
not yet learned the method of special interpretation, had only the alternative, if he was
convinced of the truth of the Gospel of Christ as Paul had proclaimed it, of either giving up
this Gospel against the dictates of his conscience, or striking out of the Epistles whatever
seemed Jewish. But in this case the god of creation also disappeared, and the fact that Marcion
could make this sacrifice proves that this religious spirit, with all his energy, was not able
to rise to the height of the religious faith which we find in the preaching of Jesus.
In basing his own position and that of his church on Paulinism, as he conceived and
remodelled it, Marcion connected himself with that part of the earliest tradition of Chris-
tianity which is best known to us, and has enabled us to understand his undertaking histor-
ically as we do no other. Here we have the means of accurately indicating what part of this
structure of the second century has come down from the Apostolic age and is really based
284
on tradition, and what has not. Where else could we do that? But Marcion has taught us far
more. He does not impart a correct understanding of early Christianity, as was once supposed,
for his explanation of that is undoubtedly incorrect, but a correct estimate of the reliability
of the traditions that were current in his day alongside of the Pauline. There can be no doubt
that Marcion criticised tradition from a dogmatic stand-point. But would his undertaking
have been at all possible if at that time a reliable tradition of the twelve Apostles and their
teaching had existed and been operative in wide circles? We may venture to say no. Con-
sequently, Marcion gives important testimony against the historical reliability of the notion
that the common Christianity was really based on the tradition of the twelve Apostles. It is
not surprising that the first man who clearly put and answered the question, “What is
Christian?” adhered exclusively to the Pauline Epistles, and therefore found a very imperfect
solution. When more than 1600 years later the same question emerged for the first time in
scientific form, its solution had likewise to be first attempted from the Pauline Epistles, and
therefore led at the outset to a one-sidedness similar to that of Marcion. The situation of
Christendom in the middle of the second century was not really more favourable to a his-
torical knowledge of early Christianity than that of the 18th century, but in many respects
more unfavourable. Even at that time, as attested by the enterprise of Marcion, its results,
and the character of the polemic against him, there were besides the Pauline Epistles no re-
liable documents from which the teaching of the twelve Apostles could have been gathered.
The position which the Pauline Epistles occupy in the history of the world is, however, de-
scribed by the fact that every tendency in the Church which was unwilling to introduce into
Christianity the power of Greek mysticism, and was yet no longer influenced by the early
231
Christian eschatology, learned from the Pauline Epistles a Christianity which, as a religion,
was peculiarly vigorous. But that position is further described by the fact that every tendency
which courageously disregards spurious traditions is compelled to turn to the Pauline
285
Epistles, which, on the one hand, present such a profound type of Christianity, and on the
other darken and narrow the judgment about the preaching of Christ himself by their
complicated theology. Marcion was the first, and for a long time the only Gentile Christian
who took his stand on Paul. He was no moralist, no Greek mystic, no Apocalyptic enthusiast,
but a religious character, nay, one of the few pronouncedly typical religious characters whom
we know in the early Church before Augustine. But his attempt to resuscitate Paulinism is
the first great proof that the conditions under which this Christianity originated do not repeat
themselves, and that therefore Paulinism itself must receive a new construction if one desires
to make it the basis of a Church. His attempt is a further proof of the unique value of the
Old Testament to early Christendom, as the only means at that time of defending Christian
monotheism. Finally, his attempt confirms the experience that a religious community can
only be founded by a religious spirit who expects nothing from the world.
Nearly all ecclesiastical writers, from Justin to Origen, opposed Marcion. He appeared
already to Justin as the most wicked enemy. We can understand this, and we can quite as
well understand how the Church Fathers put him on a level with Basilides and Valentinus,
and could not see the difference between them. Because Marcion elevated a better God
above the god of creation, and consequently robbed the Christian God of his honour, he
appeared to be worse than a heathen (Sentent. episc. LXXXVII., in Hartel’s edition of Cyp-
rian, I. p. 454; “Gentiles quamvis idola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem
cognoscunt et confitentur [!]; in hunc Marcion, blasphemat, etc.”), as a blaspheming emissary
of demons, as the first-born of Satan (Polyc., Justin, Irenæus). Because he rejected the alleg-
oric interpretation of the Old Testament, and explained its predictions as referring to a
Messiah of the Jews who was yet to come, he seemed to be a Jew (Tertull., adv. Marc. III.).
Because he deprived Christianity of the apologetic proof (the proof from antiquity) he
seemed to be a heathen and a Jew at the same time (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 3, p. 68; the
antitheses of Marcion became very important for the heathen and Manichæan assaults on
286
Christianity). Because he represented the twelve Apostles as unreliable witnesses, he appeared
to be the most wicked and shameless of all heretics. Finally, because he gained so many ad-
herents, and actually founded a church, he appeared to be the ravening wolf (Justin, Rhodon),
and his church as the spurious church. (Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 5.) In Marcion the Church
Fathers chiefly attacked what they attacked in all Gnostic heretics, but here error shewed
itself in its worst form. They learned much in opposing Marcion (see Bk. II.). For instance,
their interpretation of the regula fidei and of the New Testament received a directly Antim-
arcionite expression in the Church. One thing, however, they could not learn from him,
and that was how to make Christianity into a philosophic system. He formed no such system,
232
but he has given a clearly outlined conception, based on historic documents, of Christianity
as the religion which redeems the world.
Literature.—All anti-heretical writings of the early Church, but especially Justin, Apol.
I. 26, 58; Iren. I. 27; Tertull., adv. Marc. I-V.; de præscr.; Hippol., Philos.; Adamant., de recta
in deum fidei; Epiph. h. 42; Ephr. Syr.; Esnik. The older attempts to restore the Marcionite
Gospel and Apostolicum have been antiquated by Zahn’s Kanonsgeschichte, l. c. Hahn
(Regimonti, 1823) has attempted to restore the Antitheses. We are still in want of a German
monograph on Marcion (see the whole presentation of Gnosticism by Zahn, with his Ex-
cursus, l. c.). Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 316 f. 522 f.; cf. my work, Zur Quellenkritik des
Gnosticismus, 1873; de Apelles Gnosis Monarchia, 1874; Beiträge z. Gesch. der Marcionit-
ischen Kirchen (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1876). Marcion’s Commentar zum Evangelium
(Ztschr. f. K. G. Bd. IV. 4). Apelles Syllogismen in the Texte u. Unters. VI. H. 3. Zahn, die
Dialoge des Adamantius in the Ztschr. f. K-Gesch. IX. p. 193 ff. Meyboom, Marcion en de
Marcionieten, Leiden, 1888.
287
233
Chapter VI. The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the Notion…
CHAPTER VI
APPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS.

I. Original Christianity was in appearance Christian Judaism, the creation of a universal
religion on Old Testament soil. It retained, therefore, so far as it was not hellenised, which
never altogether took place, its original Jewish features. The God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob was regarded as the Father of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was the authoritative
source of revelation, and the hopes of the future were based on the Jewish ones. The heritage
which Christianity took over from Judaism shews itself on Gentile Christian soil, in fainter
or distincter form, in proportion as the philosophic mode of thought already prevails, or
recedes into the background.262 To describe the appearance of the Jewish, Old Testament,
heritage in the Christian faith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name Jewish Christianity,
beginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at will, must therefore
necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a very great extent. For this designation makes
288
it appear as though the Jewish element in the Christian religion were something accidental,
while it is rather the case that all Christianity, in so far as something alien is not foisted into
it, appears as the religion of Israel perfected and spiritualised. We are therefore not justified
in speaking of Jewish Christianity where a Christian community, even one of Gentile birth,
calls itself the true Israel, the people of the twelve tribes, the posterity of Abraham; for this
transfer is based on the original claim of Christianity and can only be forbidden by a view
that is alien to it. Just as little may we designate Jewish Christian the mighty and realistic
hopes of the future which were gradually repressed in the second and third centuries. They
may be described as Jewish, or as Christian; but the designation Jewish Christian must be
262 The attitude of the recently discovered “Teaching of the twelve Apostles” is strictly universalistic, and
hostile to Judaism as a nation, but shews us a Christianity still essentially uninfluenced by philosophic elements.
The impression made by this fact has caused some scholars to describe the treatise as a document of Jewish
Christianity. But the attitude of the Didache is rather the ordinary one of universalistic early Christianity on the
soil of the Græco-Roman world. If we describe this as Jewish Christian, then from the meaning which we must
give to the words “Christian” and “Gentile Christian,” we tacitly legitimise an undefined and undefinable aggregate
of Greek ideas, along with a specifically Pauline element, as primitive Christianity, and this is perhaps not the
intended, but yet desired, result of the false terminology. Now, if we describe even such writings as the Epistle
of James and the Shepherd of Hermas as Jewish Christian, we therewith reduce the entire early Christianity,
which is the creation of a universal religion on the soil of Judaism, to the special case of an indefinable religion.
The same now appears as one of the particular values of a completely indeterminate magnitude. Hilgenfeld
(Judenthum und Judenchristenthum, 1886; cf. also Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1886 H. 4.) advocates another conception
of Jewish Christianity in opposition to the following account. Zahn. Gesch. des N.T.-lich. Kanons, II. p. 668 ff.
has a different view still.
234
rejected; for it gives a wrong impression as to the historic right of these hopes in Christianity.
The eschatological ideas of Papias were not Jewish Christian, but Christian; while, on the
other hand, the eschatological speculations of Origen were not Gentile Christian, but essen-
tially Greek. Those Christians who saw in Jesus the man chosen by God and endowed with
the Spirit, thought about the Redeemer not in a Jewish Christian, but in a Christian manner.
Those of Asia Minor who held strictly to the 14th of Nisan as the term of the Easter festival,
were not influenced by Jewish Christian, but by Christian or Old Testament considerations.
The author of the “Teaching of the Apostles,” who has transferred the rights of the Old
Testament priests with respect to the first fruits to the Christian prophets, shews himself by
such transference not as a Jewish Christian, but as a Christian. There is no boundary here;
for Christianity took possession of the whole of Judaism as religion, and it is therefore a
most arbitrary view of history which looks upon the Christian appropriation of the Old
Testament religion, after any point, as no longer Christian, but only Jewish Christian.
Wherever the universalism of Christianity is not violated in favour of the Jewish nation, we
have to recognise every appropriation of the Old Testament as Christian. Hence this pro-
ceeding could be spontaneously undertaken in Christianity, as was in fact done.
289
2. But the Jewish religion is a national religion, and Christianity burst the bonds of na-
tionality, though not for all who recognised Jesus as Messiah. This gives the point at which
the introduction of the term “Jewish Christianity” is appropriate.263 It should be applied
exclusively to those Christians who really maintained in their whole extent, or in some
measure, even if it were to a minimum degree, the national and political forms of Judaism
and the observance of the Mosaic law in its literal sense, as essential to Christianity, at least
to the Christianity of born Jews, or who, though rejecting these forms, nevertheless assumed
a prerogative of the Jewish people even in Christianity (Clem., Homil. XI. 26: ἐὰν ὁ
ἀλλόφυλος τὸν νόμον πράξῃ, Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, μὴ πράξας δέ Ἕλλην; “If the foreigner observe
the law he is a Jew, but if not he is a Greek”).264 To this Jewish Christianity is opposed, not
Gentile Christianity, but the Christian religion, in so far as it is conceived as universalistic
and anti-national in the strict sense of the term (Presupp. § 3), that is, the main body of
Christendom in so far as it has freed itself from Judaism as a nation.265
263 Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as synonymous.

264 The more rarely the right standard has been set up in the literature of Church history for the distinction
of Jewish Christianity, the more valuable are those writings in which it is found. We must refer, above all, to
Diestel, Geschichte des A. T. in der Christl. Kirche, p. 44, note 7.
265 See Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 409 f. as to the attempt of Joel to make out that the whole of Christendom
up to the end of the first century was strictly Jewish Christian, and to exhibit the complete friendship of Jews
and Christians in that period (“Blicke in die Religionsgesch.” 2 Abth. 1883). It is not improbable that Christians
like James, living in strict accordance with the law, were for the time being respected even by the Pharisees in
235
It is not strange that this Jewish Christianity was subject to all the conditions which
arose from the internal and external position of the Judaism of the time; that is, different
tendencies were necessarily developed in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or
the disintegrations) which asserted themselves in the Judaism of that time. It lies also in the
nature of the case that, with one exception, that of Pharisaic Jewish Christianity, all other
290
tendencies were accurately parallelled in the systems which appeared in the great, that is,
anti-Jewish Christendom. They were distinguished from these, simply by a social and
political, that is, a national element. Moreover, they were exposed to the same influences
from without as the synagogue and as the larger Christendom, till the isolation to which
Judaism as a nation, after severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also.
Consequently, there were besides Pharisaic Jewish Christians, ascetics of all kinds who were
joined by all those over whom Oriental religious wisdom and Greek philosophy had won a
commanding influence. (See above, p. 242 f.)
In the first century these Jewish Christians formed the majority in Palestine, and perhaps
also in some neighbouring provinces. But they were also found here and there in the West.
Now the great question is whether this Jewish Christianity as a whole, or in certain of
its tendencies, was a factor in the development of Christianity to Catholicism. This question
is to be answered in the negative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as
with regard to the political history of the Church. From the stand-point of the universal
history of Christianity, these Jewish Christian communities appear as rudimentary structures
which now and again, as objects of curiosity, engaged the attention of the main body of
Christendom in the East, but could not exert any important influence on it, just because
they contained a national element.
The Jewish Christians took no considerable part in the Gnostic controversy, the epoch-
making conflict which was raised within the pale of the larger Christendom about the decisive
question, whether and to what extent the Old Testament should remain a basis of Christianity,
although they themselves were no less occupied with the question.266 The issue of this
the period preceding the destruction of Jerusalem But that can in no case have been the rule. We see from Epiph.
h. 29. 9. and from the Talmud what was the custom at a later period.
266 There were Jewish Christians who represented the position of the great Church with reference to the Old
Testament religion, and there were some who criticised the Old Testament like the Gnostics. Their contention
may have remained as much an internal one as that between the Church Fathers and Gnostics (Marcion) did,
so far as Jewish Christianity is concerned. Their may have been relations between Gnostic Jewish Christians
and Gnostics not of a national Jewish type, in Syria and Asia Minor, though we are completely in the dark on
the matter.
236
conflict in favour of that party which recognised the Old Testament in its full extent as a
revelation of the Christian God, and asserted the closest connection between Christianity
and the Old Testament religion, was so little the result of any influence of Jewish Christianity,
291
that the existence of the latter would only have rendered that victory more difficult unless
it had already fallen into the background as a phenomenon of no importance.267 How
completely insignificant it was is shewn not only by the limited polemics of the Church
Fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new import which the reproach of
Judaising obtained in Christendom after the middle of the second century. In proportion
as the Old Testament, in opposition to Gnosticism, became a more conscious and accredited
possession in the Church, and at the same time, in consequence of the naturalising of
Christianity in the world, the need of regulations, fixed rules, statutory enactments etc.,
appeared as indispensable, it must have been natural to use the Old Testament as a holy
code of such enactments. This procedure was no falling away from the original anti-Judaic
attitude, provided nothing national was taken from the book, and some kind of spiritual
interpretation given to what had been borrowed. The “apostasy” rather lay simply in the
changed needs. But one now sees how those parties in the Church, to which for any reason
this progressive legislation was distasteful, raised the reproach of “Judaising,”268 and further,
how conversely the same reproach was hurled at those Christians who resisted the advancing
hellenising of Christianity, with regard, for example, to the doctrine of God, eschatology,
292
267 From the mere existence of Jewish Christians, those Christians who rejected the Old Testament might
have argued against the main body of Christendom and put before it the dilemma: either Jewish Christian or
Marcionite. Still more logical indeed was the dilemma: either Jewish, or Marcionite Christian.
268 So did the Montanists and Antimontanists mutually reproach each other with Judaising (see the
Montanist writings of Tertullian). Just in the same way the arrangements as to worship and organisation, which
were ever being more richly developed, were described by the freer parties as Judaising, because they made appeal
to the Old Testament, though, as regards their contents, they had little in common with Judaism. But is not the
method of claiming Old Testament authority for the regulations rendered necessary by circumstances nearly
as old as Christianity itself? Against whom the lost treatise of Clement of Alexandria “κανών ἐκκλησιαστικὸς
ἣ προς τοὺς Ἰουδαίζοντας” (Euseb. H. E. VI. 13. 3.) was directed, we cannot tell. But as we read, Strom., VI. 15.
125, that the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded according to the ἐκκλησιαστικὸς κανὼν, and then find the
following definition of the Canon: κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικός ἡ συνωδία καὶ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν
τῆ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ, we may conjecture that the Judaisers were those
Christians who, in principle or to some extent, objected to the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament.
We have then to think either of Marcionite Christians or of “Chiliasts,” that is, the old Christians who were still
numerous in Egypt about the middle of the third century (see Dionys. Alex. in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24). In the first
case, the title of the treatise would be paradoxical. But perhaps the treatise refers to the Quarto-decimans, although
the expression κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός seems too ponderous for them (see, however, Orig., Comm. in Matth.
237
Christology, etc.269 But while this reproach is raised, there is nowhere shewn any connection
between those described as Judaising Christians and the Ebionites. That they were identified
off-hand is only a proof that “Ebionitism” was no longer known. That “Judaising” within
Catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the setting up of a Catholic ceremonial law
(worship, constitution, etc.), and on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less hellenised
forms of faith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with Jewish Christianity, which
desired somehow to confine Christianity to the Jewish nation.270 Speculations that take no
account of history may make out that Catholicism became more and more Jewish Christian.
But historical observation, which reckons only with concrete quantities, can discover in
Catholicism, besides Christianity, no element which it would have to describe as Jewish
Christian. It observes only a progressive hellenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive
spiritual legislation which utilizes the Old Testament, a process which went on for centuries
according to the same methods which had been employed in the larger Christendom from
the beginning.271 Baur’s brilliant attempt to explain Catholicism as a product of the mutual
293
n. 76, ed. Delarue III., p. 895). Clement may possibly have had Jewish Christians before him. See Zahn,
Forschungen, vol. III., p. 37 f.
269 Cases of this kind are everywhere, up to the fifth century, so numerous that they need not be cited. We
may only remind the reader that the Nestorian Christology was described by its earliest and its latest opponents
as Ebionitic.
270 Or were those western Christians Ebionitic who, in the fourth century, still clung to very realistic Chiliastic
hopes, who, in fact, regarded their Christianity as consisting in these?
271 The hellenising of Christianity went hand in hand with a more extensive use of the Old Testament; for,
according to the principles of Catholicism, every new article of the Church system must be able to legitimise itself
as springing from revelation. But, as a rule, the attestation could only be gathered from the Old Testament, since
religion here appears in the fixed form of a secular community. Now the needs of a secular community for
outward regulations gradually became so strong in the Church as to require palpable ceremonial rules. But it
cannot be denied that from a certain point of time, first by means of the fiction of Apostolic constitutions (see
my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 239 ff.), and then without this fiction, not, however, as a rule, without
reservations, ceremonial regulations were simply taken over from the Old Testament. But this transference (see
Bk. II.) takes place at a time when there can be absolutely no question of an influence of Jewish Christianity.
Moreover, it always proves itself to be catholic by the fact that it did not in the least soften the traditional anti-
Judaism. On the contrary, it attained its full growth in the age of Constantine. Finally, it should not be overlooked
that at all times in antiquity certain provincial churches were exposed to Jewish influences, especially in the East
and in Arabia, that they were therefore threatened with being Judaised, or with apostasy to Judaism, and that
even at the present day certain Oriental Churches shew tokens of having once been subject to Jewish influences
(see Serapion in Euseb. H. E. VI. 12. 1, Martyr. Pion., Epiph. de mens. et pond 15. 18; my Texte u. Unters. I. 3.
p. 73 f., and Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Part. 3. p. 197 ff.; actual disputations with Jews do not seem
238
conflict and neutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, (the latter, according to Baur,
being equivalent to Paulinism) reckons with two factors, of which the one had no significance
at all, and the other only an indirect effect, as regards the formation of the Catholic Church.
The influence of Paul in this direction is exhausted in working out the universalism of the
Christian religion, for a Greater than he had laid the foundation for this movement, and
Paul did not realise it by himself alone. Placed on this height Catholicism was certainly de-
veloped by means of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with Ebionitism,
which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as the first century, but as the result
294
of the conflict of Christianity with the united powers of the world in which it existed, on
behalf of its own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the Old Testament. Here
were fought triumphant battles, but here also compromises were made which characterise
the essence of Catholicism as Church and as doctrine.272
to have been common, though see Tertull., adv. Jud. and Orig. c. Cels. I. 45, 49, 55: II. 31. Clement also keeps
in view Jewish objections). This Jewish Christianity, if we like to call it so, which in some regions of the East was
developed through an immediate influence of Judaism on Catholicism, should not, however, be confounded
with the Jewish Christianity which is the most original form in which Christianity realised itself. This was no
longer able to influence the Christianity which had shaken itself free from the Jewish nation (as to futile attempts,
see below), any more than the protecting covering stripped from the new shoot can ever again acquire significance
for the latter.
272 What is called the ever-increasing “legal” feature of Gentile Christianity and the Catholic Church is con-
ditioned by its origin, in so far as its theory is rooted in that of Judaism spiritualised and influenced by Hellenism.
As the Pauline conception of, the law never took effect, and a criticism of the Old Testament religion which is
just law, neither understood nor ventured upon in the larger Christendom—the forms were not criticised, but
the contents spiritualised—so the theory that Christianity is promise and spiritual law is to be regarded as the
primitive one. Between the spiritual law and the national law there stand indeed ceremonial laws which, without
being spiritually interpreted, could yet be freed from the national application. It cannot be denied that the
Gentile Christian communities and the incipient Catholic Church were very careful and reserved in their adoption
of such laws from the Old Testament, and that the later Church no longer observed this caution. But still it is
only a question of degree, for there are many examples of that adoption in the earliest period of Christendom.
The latter had no cause for hurry in utilizing the Old Testament so long as there was no external or internal
policy, or so long as it was still in embryo. The decisive factor lies here again in enthusiasm and not in changing
theories. The basis for these was supplied from the beginning. But a community of individuals under spiritual
excitement builds on this foundation something different from an association which wishes to organise and
assert itself as such on earth. (The history of Sunday is specially instructive here; see Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags,
1878, as well as the history of the discipline of fasting, see Linsenmayr, Entwickelung der Kirchl. Fastendisciplin.
1877, and Die Abgabe des Zehnten. In general, cf. Ritschl., Entstehung der Altkath. Kirche, 2 edit. pp. 312 ff.
331 ff. 1 Cor. IX. 9, may be noted).
239
A history of Jewish Christianity and its doctrines does not therefore, strictly speaking,
belong to the history of dogma, especially as the original distinction between Jewish Chris-
tianity and the main body of the Church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in
policy. But seeing that the opinions of the teachers in this Church regarding Jewish Chris-
tianity throw light upon their own stand-point, also that up till about the middle of the
second century Jewish Christians were still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great
majority of believers in Palestine,273 and finally, that attempts—unsuccessful ones indeed—on
the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile Christians under its sway did not cease till
about the middle of the third century, a short sketch may be appropriate here.274
295
273 Justin, Apol. I. 53, Dial. 47; Euseb., H. E. IV. 5; Sulpic. Sev., Hist. Sacr. II. 31; Cyrill, Catech. XIV. 15. Im-
portant testimonies in Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome.
274 No Jewish Christian writings have been transmitted to us, even from the earliest period; for the Apocalypse
of John which describes the Jews as a synagogue of Satan is not a Jewish Christian book (III. 9 especially, shews
that the author knows of only one covenant of God, viz., that with the Christians). Jewish Christian sources lie
at the basis of our synoptic Gospels, but none of them in their present form is a Jewish Christian writing. The
Acts of the Apostles is so little Jewish Christian, its author seemingly so ignorant of Jewish Christianity, at least
so unconcerned with regard to it that to him the spiritualised Jewish law, or Judaism as a religion which he
connects as closely as possible with Christianity, is a factor already completely detached from the Jewish people
(see Overbeck’s Commentar z. Apostelgesch. and his discussion in the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1872. p. 305 ff.).
Measured by the Pauline theology we may indeed, with Overbeck, say of the Gentile Christianity, as represented
by the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, that it already has germs of Judaism and represents a falling off from
Paulinism; but these expressions are not correct, because they have at least the appearance of making Paulinism
the original form of Gentile Christianity. But as this can neither be proved nor believed, the religious attitude
of the Author of the Acts of the Apostles must have been a very old one in Christendom. The Judaistic element
was not first introduced into Gentile Christianity by the opponents of Paul, who indeed wrought in the national
sense, and there is even nothing to lead to the hypothesis that the common Gentile Christian view of the Old
Testament and of the law should be conceived as resulting from the efforts of Paul and his opponents, for the
consequent effect here would either have been null, or a strengthening of the Jewish Christian thesis. The Jewish
element, that is the total acceptance of the Jewish religion sub specie aternitatis et Christi, is simply the original
Christianity of the Gentile Christians itself considered as theory. Contrary to his own intention, Paul was com-
pelled to lead his converts to this Christianity, for only for such Christianity was “the time fulfilled” within the
empire of the world. The Acts of the Apostles gives eloquent testimony to the pressing difficulties which under
such circumstances stand in the way of a historical understanding of the Gentile Christians in view of the work
and the theology of Paul. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews is not a Jewish Christian writing; but there is certainly
a peculiar state of things connected with this document. For, on the one hand, the author and his readers are
free from the law, a spiritual interpretation is given to the Old Testament religion which makes it appear to be
glorified and fulfilled in the work of Christ, and there is no mention of any prerogative of the people of Israel.
240
But, on the other hand, because the spiritual interpretation, as in Paul, is here teleological, the author allows a
temporary significance to the cultus as literally understood, and therefore by his criticism he conserves the Old
Testament religion for the past, while declaring that it was set aside as regards the present by the fulfilment of
Christ. The teleology of the author, however, looks at everything only from the point of view of shadow and
reality, an antithesis which is at the service of Paul also, but which in his case vanishes behind the antithesis of
law and grace. This scheme of thought which is to be traced back to a way of looking at things which arose in
Christian Judaism, seeing that it really distinguishes between old and new, stands midway between the conception
of the Old Testament religion entertained by Paul, and that of the common Gentile Christian as it is represented
by Barnabas. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews undoubtedly knows of a twofold convenant of God. But
the two are represented as stages, so that the second is completely based on the first. This view was more likely
to be understood by the Gentile Christians than the Pauline, that is, with some seemingly slight changes, to be
recognised as their own. But even it at first fell to the ground, and it was only in the conflict with the Marcionites
that some Church Fathers advanced to views which seem to be related to those of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Whether the author of this Epistle was a born Jew or a Gentile—in the former case he would far surpass the
Apostle Paul in his freedom from the national claims—we cannot, at any rate, recognise in it a document con-
taining a conception which still prizes the Jewish nationality in Christianity, nay, not even a document to prove
that such a conception was still dangerous. Consequently, we have no Jewish Christian memorial in the New
Testament at all, unless it be in the Pauline Epistles. But as concerns the early Christian literature outside the
Canon, the fragments of the great work of Hegesippus are even yet by some investigators claimed for Jewish
Christianity. Weizsäcker (Art. “Hegesippus” in Herzog’s R. E. 2 edit.) has shewn how groundless this assumption
is. That Hegesippus occupied the common Gentile Christian position is certain from unequivocal testimony of
his own. If, as is very improbable, we were obliged to ascribe to him a rejection of Paul, we should have to refer
to Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5. (Σευηριανοὶ βλασφημοῦντες Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς
μηδὲ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι, but probably the Gospels; these Severians therefore, like
Marcion, recognised the Gospel of Luke, but rejected the Acts of the Apostles), and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65: (εἰσὶ
γὰρ τινες αἱρέσεις τὰς Παύλου ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ ἀποστόλου μὴ προσιέμεναι ὥσπερ Ἐβιωναῖοι ἀμφότεροι καὶ οἱ
καλούμενοι ̕Σγκρατηταί). Consequently, our only sources of knowledge of Jewish Christianity in the post-
Pauline period are merely the accounts of the Church Fathers and some additional fragments (see the collection
of fragments of the Ebionite Gospel and that to the Hebrews in Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec. fasc. IV.
Ed. 2, and in Zahn, l. c. II. p. 642 ff.). We know better, but still very imperfectly, certain forms of the syncretistic
Jewish Christianity, from the Philosoph. of Hippolytus and the accounts of Epiphanius, who is certainly nowhere
more incoherent than in the delineation of the Jewish Christians, because he could not copy original documents
here, but was forced to piece together confused traditions with his own observations. See below on the extensive
documents which are even yet, as they stand, treated as records of Jewish Christianity, viz., the Pseudo-Clem-
entines. Of the pieces of writing whose Jewish Christian origin is controverted, in so far as they may be simply
Jewish, I say nothing.
241
Justin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes between those
who would force the law even on Gentile Christians and would have no fellowship with 296
such as did not observe it, and those who considered that the law was binding only on people
of Jewish birth and did not shrink from fellowship with Gentile Christians who were living
297
without the law. How the latter could observe the law and yet enter into intercourse with
those who were not Jews is involved in obscurity, but these he recognises as partakers of the
Christian salvation and therefore as Christian brethren, though he declares that there are
Christians who do not possess this large-heartedness. He also speaks of Gentile Christians
who allowed themselves to be persuaded by Jewish Christians into the observance of the
Mosaic law, and confesses that he is not quite sure of the salvation of these. This is all we
learn from Justin,275 but it is instructive enough. In the first place, we can see that the
question is no longer a burning one: “Justin here represents only the interests of a Gentile
Christianity whose stability has been secured.” This has all the more meaning that in the
Dialogue Justin has not in view an individual Christian community, or the communities of
a province, but speaks as one who surveys the whole situation of Christendom.276 The very
fact that Justin has devoted to the whole question only one chapter of a work containing
142, and the magmanimous way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question
have no longer any importance for the main body of Christendom. Secondly, it is worthy
of notice that Justin distinguishes two tendencies in Jewish Christianity. We observe these
two tendencies in the Apostolic age (Presupp. § 3); they had therefore maintained themselves
to his time. Finally, we must not overlook the circumstance that he adduces only the ἐν ́ νομος
πολιτεία, “legal polity,” as characteristic of this Jewish Christianity. He speaks only incident-
ally of a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly presupposes that the διδάγματα Χριστοῦ,
“teachings of Christ,” are essentially found among them just as among the Gentile Christians;
for he regards the more liberal among them as friends and brethren.277
The fact that even then there were Jewish Christians here and there who sought to spread
the ἔννομος πολιτεία among Gentile Christians has been attested by Justin and also by 298
other contemporary writers.278 But there is no evidence of this propaganda having acquired
275 As to the chief localities where Jewish Christians were found, see Zahn, Kanonsgesch. II. p. 648 ff.
276 Dialogue 47.
277 Yet it should be noted that the Christians who, according to Dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of Christ
and held him to be a man are described as Jewish Christians. We should read in the passage in question, as my
recent comparison of the Parisian codex shews, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑμετέρου γένους. Yet Justin did not make this a con-
troversial point of great moment.
278 The so-called Barnabas is considerably older than Justin. In his Epistle (4. 6) he has in view Gentile
Christians who have been converted by Jewish Christians, when he utters a warning against those who say ὅτι
α διαθήκη ἐκείνων (the Jews) καὶ ἡμῶν (ἐστιν). But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from
the Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 8–10: ad Philad. 6. 9) opposes Jewish Christian intrigues, and
242
any great importance. Celsus also knows Christians who desire to live as Jews according to
the Mosaic law (V. 61), but he mentions them only once, and otherwise takes no notice of
them in his delineation of, and attack on, Christianity. We may perhaps infer that he knew
of them only from hearsay, for he simply enumerates them along with the numerous Gnostic
sects. Had this keen observer really known them he would hardly have passed them over,
even though he had met with only a small number of them.279 Irenæus placed the Ebionites
among the heretical schools,280 but we can see from his work that in his day they must have
been all but forgotten in the West.281 This was not yet the case in the East. Origen knows
299
characterises them solely from the point of view that they mean to introduce the Jewish observance of the law.
He opposes them with a Pauline idea (Magn. 8. 1: εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν κατὰ νόμον, Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν
χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι), as well as with the common Gentile Christian assumption that the prophets themselves
had already lived κατὰ Χριστόν. These Judaists must be strictly distinguished from the Gnostics whom Ignatius
elsewhere opposes (against Zahn, Ignat. v. Ant. p. 356 f.). The dangers from this Jewish Christianity cannot have
been very serious, even if we take Magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. There was an active Jewish community in Philadelphia
(Rev. III. 9), and so Jewish Christian plots may have continued longer there. At the first look it seems very
promising that in the old dialogue of Aristo of Pella a Hebrew Christian, Jason, is put in opposition to the Alex-
andrian Jew, Papiscus. But as the history of the little book proves, this Jason must have essentially represented
the common Christian and not the Ebionite conception of the Old Testament and its relation to the Gospel,
etc.; see my Texte u. Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 115 ff.; I. 3. pp. 115-130. Testimony as to an apostasy to Judaism is occa-
sionally though rarely given; see Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, who addresses a book to one Domninus,
ἐκπεπτωκότα παρὰ τὸν τοῦ διῶγμοὐ καιρὸν ἀπὸ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ἐπί τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἐθελοθρησκείαν;
see also Acta Pionii, 13. 14. According to Epiphanius, de mens et pond. 14. 15, Acquila, the translator of the
Bible, was first a Christian and then a Jew. This account is perhaps derived from Origen, and is probably reliable.
Likewise according to Epiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), Theodotion was first a Marcionite and then a Jew. The transition
from Marcionitism to Judaism (for extremes meet) is not in itself incredible.
279 It follows from c. Cels. II. 1-3, that Celsus could hardly have known Jewish Christians.
280 Iren. 26. 2: III. 11. 7: III. 15. 1, 21. 1: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3. We first find the name Ebionti, the poor, in Irenæus.
We are probably entitled to assume that this name was given to the Christians in Jerusalem as early as the
Apostolic age, that is, they applied it to themselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of Christ, fit to be re-
ceived into the Messianic kingdom). It is very questionable whether we should put any value on Epiph. h. 30.
17.
281 When Irenæus adduces as the points of distinction between the Church and the Ebionites, that besides
observing the law and repudiating the Apostle Paul, the latter deny the Divinity of Christ and his birth from the
Virgin and reject the New Testament Canon (except the Gospel of Matthew), that only proves that the formation
of dogma has made progress in the Church. The less was known of the Ebionites from personal observation,
the more confidently they were made out to be heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ and rejected the
Canon. The denial of the Divinity of Christ and the birth from the Virgin was, from the end of the second century,
regarded as the Ebionite heresy par excellence, and the Ebionites themselves appeared to the Western Christians,
243
of them. He knows also of some who recognise the birth from the Virgin. He is sufficiently
intelligent and acquainted with history to judge that the Ebionites are no school, but, as
believing Jews, are the descendants of the earliest Christians, in fact he seems to suppose
that all converted Jews have at all times observed the law of their fathers. But he is far from
judging of them favourably. He regards them as little better than the Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ
ὀλίγῳ διαφέροντες αὐτῶν Ἐβιωναῖοι, “Jews and Ebionites who differ little from them”).
Their rejection of Paul destroys the value of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah. They appear
only to have assumed Christ’s name, and their literal exposition of the Scripture is meagre
300
and full of error. It is possible that such Jewish Christians may have existed in Alexandria,
but it is not certain. Origen knows nothing of an inner development in this Jewish Christian-
ity.282 Even in Palestine, Origen seems to have occupied himself personally with these Jewish
Christians, just as little as Eusebius.283 They lived apart by themselves and were not aggress-
who obtained their information solely from the East, to be a school like those of the Gnostics, founded by a
scoundrel named Ebion for the purpose of dragging down the person of Jesus to the common level. It is also
mentioned incidentally, that this Ebion had commanded the observance of circumcision and the Sabbath; but
that is no longer the main thing (see Tertull, de carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de præscr. 10. 33; Hippol., Syn-
tagma, [Pseudo-Tertull, 11; Philastr. 37; Epiph. h. 30]; Hippol., Philos. VII. 34. The latter passage contains the
instructive statement that Jesus by his perfect keeping of the law became the Christ). This attitude of the Western
Christians proves that they no longer knew Jewish Christian communities Hence it is all the more strange that
Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all earnestness endeavoured to revive the Ebion of the Western Church
Fathers.
282 See Orig. c. Cels. II. 1: V. 61, 65: de princip. IV. 22; hom. in Genes. III. 15 (Opp. II, p. 65): hom. in Jerem.
XVII. 12 (III. p. 254): in Matth. T. XVI. 12 (III. p. 494), T. XVII. 12 (III. p. 733); cf. Opp. III. p. 895: hom. in Lc.
XVII. (III. p. 952). That a portion of the Ebionites recognised the birth from the Virgin was according to Origen
frequently attested. That was partly reckoned to them for righteousness and partly not, because they would not
admit the pre-existence of Christ. The name “Ebionites” is interpreted as a nickname given them by the Church
“beggarly” in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly of Christology.
283 Eusebius knows no more than Origen (H. E. III. 27) unless we specially credit him with the information
that the Ebionites keep along with the Sabbath also the Sunday. What he says of Symmachus, the translator of
the Bible, and an Ebionite, is derived from Origen (H. E. VI. 17). The report is interesting, because it declares
that Symmachus wrote against Catholic Christianity, especially against the Catholic Gospel of Matthew (about
the year 200). But Symmachus is to be classed with the Gnostics, and not with the common type of Jewish
Christianity (see below). We have also to thank Eusebius (H. E. III. 5. 3) for the information that the Christians
of Jerusalem fled to Pella, in Peræa, before the destruction of that city. In the following period the most important
settlements of the Ebionites must have been in the countries east of the Jordan, and in the heart of Syria (see
Jul. Afric. in Euseb., H. E. I. 7. 14: Euseb., de loc. hebr. in Lagarde, Onomast. p. 301; Epiph., h. 29. 7: h. 30. 2).
This fact explains how the bishops in Jerusalem and the coast towns of Palestine came to see very little of them.
There was a Jewish Christian community in Beroea with which Jerome had relations (Jerom., de Vir. inl. 3).
244
ive. Jerome is the last who gives us a clear and certain account of them.284 He, who associated
with them, assures us that their attitude was the same as in the second century, only they
seem to have made progress in the recognition of the birth from the Virgin and in their
more friendly position towards the Church.285 Jerome at one time calls them Ebionites and
at another Nazarenes, thereby proving that these names were used synonymously.286 There
301
is not the least ground for distinguishing two clearly marked groups of Jewish Christians,
or even for reckoning the distinction of Origen and the Church Fathers to the account of
Jewish Christians themselves, so as to describe as Nazarenes those who recognised the birth
from the Virgin and who had no wish to compel the Gentile Christians to observe the law,
and the others as Ebionites. Apart from syncretistic or Gnostic Jewish Christianity, there is
but one group of Jewish Christians holding various shades of opinion, and these from the
beginning called themselves Nazarenes as well as Ebionites. From the beginning, likewise,
one portion of them was influenced by the existence of a great Gentile Church which did
not observe the law. They acknowledged the work of Paul and experienced in a slight degree
influences emanating from the great Church.287 But the gulf which separated them from
that Church did not thereby become narrower. That gulf was caused by the social and
political separation of these Jewish Christians, whatever mental attitude, hostile or friendly,
302
284 Jerome correctly declares (Ep. ad. August. 122. C. 13, Opp. I. p. 746), “(Ebionitæ) credentes in Christo
propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cæremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic
nova confessa sunt, ut vetera non omitterent.”
285 Ep. ad August. l. c.; Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas
orientis synagogas inter Judæos (!) hæresis est, que dicitur Minæorum et a Pharisæis nunc usque damnatur,
quos vulgo Nazaræos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum filium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dicunt
esse, qui sub pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt et Judæi esse et
Christiani, nec Judæi sunt nec Christiani.” The approximation of the Jewish Christian conception to that of the
Catholics shews itself also in their exposition of Isaiah IX. 1. f. (see Jerome on the passage). Bert we must not
forget that there were such Jewish Christians from the earliest times. It is worthy of note that the name Nazarenes,
as applied to Jewish Christians, is found in the Acts of the Apostles XXIV. 5, in the Dialogue of Jason and
Papiscus, and then first again in Jerome.
286 Zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of the contrary, but I confess that Jerome’s style of ex-
pression is not everywhere clear.
287 Zahn, (1. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the Nazarenes, on the one side, who used the Gospel of
the Hebrews, acknowledged the With from the Virgin, and in fact the higher Christology to some extent, did
not repudiate Paul, etc., and the Ebionites on the other, whom he simply identifies with the Gnostic Jewish
Christians, if I am not mistaken. In opposition to this, I think I must adhere to the distinction as given above
in the text and in the following: (1) Non-Gnostic, Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites), who appeared in
various shades, according to their doctrine and attitude to the Gentile Church, and whom, with the Church
245
they might take up to the great Church. This Church stalked over them with iron feet, as
over a structure which in her opinion was full of contradictions throughout (“Semi-christi-
ani”), and was disconcerted neither by the gospel of these Jewish Christians nor by anything
else about them.288 But as the Synagogue also vigorously condemned them, their position
up to their extinction was a most tragic one. These Jewish Christians, more than any other
Christian party, bore the reproach of Christ.
The Gospel, at the time when it was proclaimed among the Jews, was not only law, but
theology, and indeed syncretistic theology. On the other hand, the temple service and the
sacrificial system had begun to lose their hold in certain influential circles.289 We have
pointed out above (Presupp. §§ I. 2. 5) how great were the diversities of Jewish sects, and
that there was in the Diaspora, as well as in Palestine itself, a Judaism which, on the one
hand, followed ascetic impulses, arid on the other, advanced to a criticism of the religious
tradition without giving up the national claims. It may even be said that in theology the
boundaries between the orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees and a syncretistic Judaism were
of an elastic kind. Although religion, in those circles, seemed to be fixed in its legal aspect,
yet on its theological side it was ready to admit very diverse speculations, in which angelic
powers especially played a great rôle.290 That introduced into Jewish monotheism an element
303
Fathers, we may appropriately classify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2) Gnostic or syncretistic Judæo-
Christians who are also termed Ebionites.
288 This Gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of the Catholic Church from Clement of Alexandria
onwards. But they have almost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. It may be noted, in-
cidentally, that the Gospel of the Hebrews, to judge from the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the
model nor the translation of our Matthew, but a work independent of this, though drawing from the same
sources, representing perhaps to some extent an earlier stage of the tradition. Jerome also knew very well that
the Gospel of the Hebrews was not the original of the canonical Matthew, but he took care not to correct the
old prejudice. Ebionitic conceptions, such as that of the female nature of the Holy Spirit, were of course least
likely to convince the Church Fathers. Moreover, the common Jewish Christians hardly possessed a Church
theology, because for them Christianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a school. On the
Gospel of the Hebrews, see Handmann (Texte u. Unters V. 3), Resch, Agrapha (1. c. V. 4), and Zahn, l. c. p. 642
ff.
289 We have as yet no history of the sacrificial system and the views as to sacrifice in the Græco-Roman epoch
of the Jewish Nation. It is urgently needed.
290 We may remind readers of the assumptions, that the world was created by angels, that the law was given
by angels, and similar ones which are found in the theology of the Pharisees. Celsus (in Orig. I. 26: V. 6) asserts
generally that the Jews worshipped angels, so does the author of the Prædicatio Petri, as well as the apologist
Aristides. Cf. Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgesch. I Abth., a book which is certainly to be used with caution (see
Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1881. Coll. 184 ff.).
246
of differentiation, the results of which were far-reaching. The field was prepared for the
formation of syncretistic sects. They present themselves to us on the soil of the earliest
Christianity, in the speculations of those Jewish Christian teachers who are opposed in the
Epistle to the Colossians, and in the Gnosis of Cerinthus (see above, p. 247). Here cosmolo-
gical ideas and myths were turned to profit. The idea of God was sublimated by both. In
consequence of this, the Old Testament records were subjected to criticism, because they
could not in all respects be reconciled with the universal religion which hovered before
men’s minds. This criticism was opposed to the Pauline in so far as it maintained, with the
common Jewish Christians and Christendom as a whole, that the genuine Old Testament
religion was essentially identical with the Christian. But while those common Jewish
Christians drew from this the inference that the whole of the Old Testament must be adhered
to in its traditional sense and in all its ordinances, and while the larger Christendom secured
for itself the whole of the Old Testament by deviating from the ordinary interpretation,
those syncretistic Jewish Christians separated from the Old Testament, as interpolations,
whatever did not agree with their purer moral conceptions and borrowed speculations.
Thus, in particular, they got rid of the sacrificial ritual and all that was connected with it by
putting ablutions in their place. First the profanation, and afterwards the abolition of the
temple worship after the destruction of Jerusalem, may have given another new and welcome
impulse to this by coming to be regarded as its Divine confirmation (Presupp. § 2). Chris-
tianity now appeared as purified Mosaism. In these Jewish Christian undertakings we have
undoubtedly before us a series of peculiar attempts to elevate the Old Testament religion
into the universal one, under the impression of the person of Jesus; attempts, however, in
304
which the Jewish religion, and not the Jewish people, was to bear the costs by curtailment
of its distinctive features. The great inner affinity of these attempts with the Gentile Christian
Gnostics has already been set forth. The firm partition wall between them, however, lies in
the claim of these Jewish Christians to set forth the pure Old Testament religion, as well as
in the national Jewish colouring which the constructed universal religion was always to
preserve. This national colouring is shewn in the insistance upon a definite measure of
Jewish national ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and in the opposition to the Apostle
Paul, which united the Gnostic Judæo-Christians with the common type, those of the strict
observance. How the latter were related to the former, we do not know, for the inner relations
here are almost completely unknown to us.291
291 No reliance can be placed on Jewish sources, or on Jewish scholars, as a rule. What we find in Joël, l. c. I.
Abth. p. 101 ff. is instructive. We may mention Grätz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoschin, 1846), who
has called attention to the Gnostic elements in the Talmud, and dealt with several Jewish Gnostics and Anti-
gnostics, as well as with the book of Jezira. Grätz assumes that the four main dogmatic points in the book Jezira,
viz., the strict unity of the deity, and, at the same time, the negation of the demiurgic dualism, the creation out
247
Apart from the false doctrines opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and from
Cerinthus, this syncretistic Jewish Christianity which aimed at making itself a universal re-
ligion meets us in tangible form only in three phenomena:292 in the Elkesaites of Hippolytus
and Origen; in the Ebionites with their associates of Epiphanius, sects very closely connected,
in fact to be viewed as one party of manifold shades;293 and in the activity of Symmachus.294
We observe here a form of religion as far removed from that of the Old Testament as from
the Gospel, subject to strong heathen influences, not Greek, but Asiatic, and scarcely de-
305
serving the name “Christian,” because it appeals to a new revelation of God which is to
complete that given in Christ. We should take particular note of this in judging of the whole
remarkable phenomenon. The question in this Jewish Christianity is not the formation of
a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment of a kind of new religion, that
is, the completion of that founded by Christ, undertaken by a particular person basing his
claims on a revealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. This book which was
to form the complement of the Gospel, possessed, from the third century, importance for
all sections of Jewish Christians so far as they, in the phraseology of Epiphanius, were not
of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic unity of the world and the balancing of opposites, were
directed against prevailing Gnostic ideas.
292 We may pass over the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined,
and the possibility is not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary construction; see Holtzman, Pastor-
albriefe, p. 150 f.
293 Orig. in Euseb. VI. 38; Hippol., Philos. IX. 13 ff., X. 29; Epiph., h. 30, also h. 19. 53; Method., Conviv. VIII.
to. From the confused account of Epiphanius, who called the common Jewish Christians Nazarenes, the Gnostic
type Ebionites and Sampsmi, and their Jewish forerunners Osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where
there were Jewish Christians they yielded to the propaganda of the Elkesaite doctrines, and that in the fourth
century there was no other syncretistic Jewish Christianity besides the various shades of Elkesaites.
294 I formerly reckoned Symmachus, the translator of the Bible, among the common Jewish Christians; but
the statements of Victorinus Rhetor on Gal. I. 19. II. 26 (Migne T. VIII. Col. 1155. 1162) shew that he has a close
affinity with the Pseudo-Clementines, and is also to be classed with the Elkesaite Alcibiades. “Nam Jacobum
apostolum Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum nostrum Jesum Christum
adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam Jesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam
esse et esse animam generalem, et aliæ hujusmodi blasphemiæ.” The account given by Eusebius, H. E. VI. 17
(probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr. VII. 1) is important: Τῶν γε μὲν ἑρμηχευτῶν αὐτῶν
δὴ τούτων ἰστέον, Ἐβιωναίον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι . . . . καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμάχου εἰσέτι νῦν
φερεται, ἐν οἶς δοκεῖ πρὸς τὸ κατὺ Ματθαῖον ἀποτεινόμενος εὐαγγέλιον τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἵρεσιν κρατύνειν.
Symmachus therefore adopted an aggressive attitude towards the great Church, and hence we may probably
class him with Alcibiades who lived a little later. Common Jewish Christianity was no longer aggressive in the
second century.
248
Nazarenes.295 The whole system reminds one of Samaritan Christian syncretism;296 but we
must be on our guard against identifying the two phenomena, or even regarding them as
similar. These Elkesaite Jewish Christians held fast by the belief that Jesus was the Son of
306
God, and saw in the “book” a revelation which proceeded from him. They did not offer any
worship to their founder,297 that is, to the receiver of the “book,” and they were, as will be
shewn, the most ardent opponents of Simonianism.298
Alcibiades of Apamea, one of their disciples, came from the East to Rome about 220-
230, and endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in the Roman Church. He found
the soil prepared, inasmuch as he could announce from the “book” forgiveness of sins to
all sinful Christians, even the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much
needed. Hippolytus opposed him, and had an opportunity of seeing the book and becoming
acquainted with its contents. From his account and that of Origen we gather the following:
(1) The sect is a Jewish Christian one, for it requires the νόμου πολιτεία (circumcision and
the keeping of the Sabbath), and repudiates the Apostle Paul; but it criticises the Old Testa-
ment and rejects a part of it. (2) The objects of its faith are the “Great and most High God,”
the Son of God (the “Great King”), and the Holy Spirit (thought of as female); Son and
295 Wellhausen (l. c. Part III. p. 206) supposes that Elkesai is equivalent to Alexius. That the receiver of the
“book” was a historical person is manifest from Epiphanius’ account of his descendants (h. 19 2: 53. 1). From
Hipp. Philosoph. IX. 16, p. 468, it is certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by the
unknown author as early as the time of Trajan. On the other hand, the existence of the sect itself can be proved
only at the beginning of the third century, and therefore we have the possibility of an ante-dating of the “book”.
This seems to have been Origen’s opinion.
296 Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites: οὔτε χριστιανοὶ ὑπάρχοντει οὔτε Ἰουδαῖοι οὔτε Ἕλληνες, ἀλλὰ
μέσον ἀπλῶς ὑπάρχοντες. He pronounces a similar judgment as to the Samaritan sects (Simonians), and expressly
(h. 30. 1) connects the Elkesaites with them.
297 The worship paid to the descendants of this Elkesai, spoken of by Epiphanius, does not, if we allow for
exaggerations, go beyond the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants of prophets and
men of God in the East. Cf. the respect enjoyed by the blood relations of Jesus and Mohammed.
298 It the “book” really originated in the time of Trajan, then its production keeps within the frame-work of
common Christianity, for at that time there were appearing everywhere in Christendom revealed books which
contained new instructions and communications of grace. The reader may be reminded, for example, of the
Shepherd of Hermas. When the sect declared that the “book” was delivered to Elkesai by a male and a female
angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, etc., we have, apart
from the fantastic colouring, nothing extraordinary.
249
Spirit appear as angelic powers. Considered outwardly, and according to his birth, Christ
is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has already been frequently born and
manifested (πολλάκις γεννηθέντα καὶ γεννώμενον πεφηνέναι καὶ φύεσθαι, ἀλλάσσοντα
307
γενέσεις καὶ μετενσωματούμενον, cf. the testimony of Victorinus as to Symmachus). From
the statements of Hippolytus we cannot be sure whether he was identified with the Son of
God,299 at any rate the assumption of repeated births of Christ shews how completely
Christianity was meant to be identified with what was supposed to be the pure Old Testament
religion. (3) The “book” proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on condition of faith
in the “book” and a real change of mind, was to be bestowed on every one, through the
medium of washings, accompanied by definite prayers which are strictly prescribed. In these
prayers appear peculiar Semitic speculations about nature (“the seven witnesses: heaven,
water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt, earth”). The old Jewish way of thinking
appears in the assumption that all kinds of sickness and misfortune are punishments for
sin, and that these penalties must therefore be removed by atonement. The book contains
also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious garb. The main thing, however,
was the possibility of a forgiveness of sin, ever requiring to be repeated, though Hippolytus
himself was unable to point to any gross laxity. Still, the appearance of this sect represents
the attempt to make the religion of Christian Judaism palatable to the world. The possibility
of repeated forgiveness of sin, the speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo
of mystery, the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the “mysteries,” are worldly
means of attraction which shew that this Jewish Christianity was subject to the process of
308
acute secularization. The Jewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these conces-
sions. Yet its success in the West was of small extent and short-lived.
Epiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones. In his description,
the new forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in that of Hippolytus, but it is there. From
the account of Epiphanius we can see that these syncretistic Judæo-Christian sects were at
first strictly ascetic and rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh, but that they gradually
became more lax. We learn here that the whole sacrificial service was removed from the
299 It may be assumed from Philos. X. 29 that, in the opinion of Hyppolytus, the Elkesaites identified the
Christ from above with the Son of God, and assumed that this Christ appeared on earth in changing and purely
human forms, and will appear again (αὐτὸν δὲ μεταγγιζόμενον ἐν σώμασι πολλοῖς πολλάκις καὶ νῦν δὲ ἐν τῷ
Ἰησοῦ, ὁμοίως ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ πνεῦμα γεγονέναι, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκ παρθένου, ποτὲ δὲ οὔ
καὶ τοῦτον δὲ μετέπειτα ἀεὶ ἐν σώματι μεταγγίζεσθαι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς κατὰ καιροὺς δείκνυσθαι). As the Elkesaites
(see the account by Epiphanius) traced back the incarnations of Christ to Adam, and not merely to Abraham,
we may see in this view of history the attempt to transform Mosaism into the universal religion. But the Phar-
isaic theology had already begun with these Adam speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in
Judaism is feeling its limits too narrow. The Jews in Alexandria were also acquainted with these speculations.
250
Old Testament by the Elkesaites and declared to be non-Divine, that is non-Mosaic, and
that fire was consequently regarded as the impure and dangerous element, and water as the
good one.300 We learn further, that these sects acknowledged no prophets and men of God
between Aaron and Christ, and that they completely adapted the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
to their own views.301 In addition to this book, however, (the Gospel of the 12 Apostles),
other writings, such as Περίοδοι Πέτρου διὰ Κλήμεντος Ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου and similar
histories of Apostles, were held in esteem by them. In these writings the Apostles were rep-
resented as zealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the Apostle Paul was most
bitterly opposed. They called him a Tarsene, said he was a Greek, and heaped on him gross
abuse. Epiphanius also dwells strongly upon their Jewish mode of life (circumcision, Sabbath),
as well as their daily washings,302 and gives some information about the constitution and
form of worship of these sects (use of baptism: Lord’s Supper with bread and water). Finally,
Epiphanius gives particulars about their Christology. On this point there were differences
309
of opinion, and these differences prove that there was no Christological dogma. As among
the common Jewish Christians, the birth of Jesus from the Virgin was a matter of dispute.
Further, some identified Christ with Adam, others saw in him a heavenly being (ἄνωθεν
ὄν), a spiritual being, who was created before all, who was higher than all angels and Lord
of all things, but who chose for himself the upper world; yet this Christ from above came
down to this lower world as often as he pleased. He came in Adam, he appeared in human
form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared on earth as a man with the body of Adam,
suffered, etc. Others again, as it appears, would have nothing to do with these speculations,
but stood by the belief that Jesus was the man chosen by God, on whom, on account of his
virtue, the Holy Spirit—ὃπερ ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός—descended at the baptism.303 (Epiph. h. 30.
3, 14, 16). The account which Epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these Jewish Christians
300 In the Gospel of these Jewish Christians Jesus is made to say (Epiph. h. 30. 16) ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς
θυσιας, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ταύσησθε τοῦ θύεὶν, οὐ παύσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ ὁργὴ. We see the essential progress of this
Jewish Christianity within Judaism in the opposition in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also Epiph.,
h. 19. 3).
301 On this new Gospel see Zahn, Kanongesch. II. p. 724.
302 It is incorrect to suppose that the lustrations were meant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived
by these Jewish Christians as repeated baptisms. Their effect was certainly equal to that of baptism. But it is
nowhere hinted in our authorities that they were on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism.
303 The characteristic here, as in the Gentile Christian Gnosis, is the division of the person of Jesus into a
more or less indifferent medium, and into the Christ. Here the factor constituting his personality could sometimes
be placed in that medium, and sometimes in the Christ spirit, and thus contradictory formulæ could not but
arise. It is therefore easy to conceive how Epiphanius reproaches these Jewish Christians with a denial, sometimes
of the Divinity, and sometimes of the humanity of Christ (see h. 30 14).
251
regarding the Devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16): Δύο δὲ τινας συνιστῶσιν ἐκ θεοῦ
τεταγμένους, ἕνα μὲν τὸν Χριστὸν, ἕνα δὲ τὸν διάβολον. καὶ τὸν μὲν Χριστὸν λέγουσι τοῦ
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἰληφέναι τὸν κλῆρον, τὸν δὲ διάβολον τοῦτον πεπιστεῦσθαι ὀν αἰῶνα,
ἐκ προσταγῆς δῆθεν τοῦ παντοκράτορος κατὰ αἴτησιν ἑκατέρων αὑτῶν. Here we have a
very old Semitico-Hebraic idea preserved in a very striking way, and therefore we may
probably assume that in other respects also, these Gnostic Ebionites preserved that which
was ancient. Whether they did so in their criticism of the Old Testament, is a point on which
we must not pronounce judgment.
We might conclude by referring to the fact that this syncretistic Jewish Christianity,
apart from a well-known missionary effort at Rome, was confined to Palestine and the
neighbouring countries, and might consider it proved that this movement had no effect on
the history and development of Catholicism304 were it not for two voluminous writings 310
which still continue to be regarded as monuments of the earliest epoch of syncretistic Jewish
Christianity. Not only did Baur suppose that he could prove his hypothesis about the origin
of Catholicism by the help of these writings, but the attempt has recently been made on the
basis of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, for these are the writings in
question, to go still further and claim for Jewish Christianity the glory of having developed
by itself the whole doctrine, worship and constitution of Catholicism, and of having trans-
mitted it to Gentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be divested of
a few Jewish husks.305 It is therefore necessary to subject these writings to a brief examination.
Every-thing depends on the time of their origin, and the tendencies they follow. But these
are just the two questions that are still unanswered. Without depreciating those worthy men
who have earnestly occupied themselves with the Pseudo-Clementines,306 it may be asserted,
304 This syncretistic Judaism had indeed a significance for the history of the world, not, however, in the history
of Christianity, but for the origin of Islam. Islam, as a religious system, is based partly on syncretistic Judaism
(including the Zabians, so enigmatic in their origin), and, without questioning Mohammed’s originality, can
only be historically understood by taking this into account. I have endeavoured to establish this hypothesis in
a lecture printed in MS. form, 1877. Cf. now the conclusive proofs in Wellhausen, 1. c. Part III. p. 197-212. On
the Mandeans, see Brandt, Die Mandäische Religion, 1889; (also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit. Ztg., 1890 No.
I. Lagarde i. d. Gött. Gel. Anz., 1890, No. 10).
305 See Bestmann, Gesch. der Christ]. Sitte, Bd. II. 1 Part: Die judenchristliche Sitte, 1883; also, Theol. Lit.
Ztg., 1883. Col. 269 ff. The same author, Der Ursprung der Katholischen Christenthums und des Islams, 1884;
also Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1884, Col. 291 ff.
306 See Schliemann, Die Clementinen, etc., 1844; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementinischen Recogn. u. Homil, 1848;
Ritschl, in d. Allg. Monatschrift f. Wissensch. u. Litt., 1852. Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u. Recogn., 1854, Lehmann,
Die Clement. Schriften, 1869; Lipsius, in d. Protest. K. Ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; Quellen der Romische Petrussage,
1872. Uhlhorn, in Herzog’s R. Encykl. (Clementinen) 2 Edit. III. p. 286, admits: “There can be no doubt that
the Clementine question still requires further discussion. It can hardly make any progress worth mentioning
252
that in this region everything is as yet in darkness, especially as no agreement has been
reached even in the question of their composition. No doubt such a result appears to have
been pretty nearly arrived at as far as the time of composition is concerned, but that estimate
311
(150-170, or the latter half of the second century) not only awakens the greatest suspicion,
but can be proved to be wrong. The importance of the question for the history of dogma
does not permit the historian to set it aside, while, on the other hand, the compass of a
manual does not allow us to enter into an exhaustive investigation. The only course open
in such circumstances is briefly to define one’s own position.
1. The Recognitions and Homilies, in the form in which we have them, do not belong
to the second century, but at the very earliest to the first half of the third. There is nothing,
however, to prevent our putting them a few decades later.307
until we have collected better the material, and especially till we have got a corrected edition with an exhaustive
commentary. The theory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-Clementine writings unfolded by
Renan (Orig. T. VII. p. 74-l01) is essentially identical with that of German scholars. Langen (die Clemensromane,
1890) has set up very bold hypotheses, which are based on the assumption that Jewish Christianity was an im-
portant church factor in the second century, and that the pseudo-Clementines are comparatively old writings.
307 There is no external evidence for placing the pseudo-Clementine writings in the second century. The
oldest witness is Origen (IV. p. 401, Lommatzsch); but the quotation: “Quoniam opera bona, quæ fiunt ab
infidelibus, in hoc sæculo its prosunt,” etc., is not found in our Clementines, so that Origen appears to have
used a still older version. The internal evidence all points to the third century (canon, composition, theological
attitude, etc.). Moreover, Zahn, (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1876. No. 45) and Lagarde have declared themselves in favour
of this date; while Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch. II. 1) and Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3 Edit. p. 23) have recently
expressed the same opinion. The Homilies presuppose (1) Marcion’s Antitheses, (2) Apelles’ Syllogisms, (3)
perhaps Callistus’ edict about penance (see III. 70) and writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression ἐπὶσκοπος
ἐπισκόπων. Clem. ep. ad Jacob I., which is first found in Tertull., de pudic. I.). (4) The most highly developed
form of polemic against heathen mythology. (5) The complete development of church apologetics, as well as
the conviction that Christianity is identical with correct and absolute knowledge. They further presuppose a
time when there was a lull in the persecution of Christians, for the Emperor, though pretty often referred to, is
never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured heathen world was entirely disposed in favour of a ec-
lectic monotheism. Moreover, the remarkable Christological statement in Hom. XVI. 15. 16. points to the third
century, in fact probably even presupposes the theology of Origen; Cf. the sentence: τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ μή γεγεννῆσθαι
ἐστιν, ὑιοῦ δὲ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι λεννητὸν δὲ ἀγεννήτῳ ἤ καὶ αὐτυγεννήτῳ οὐ συνκρίνεται. Finally, the decided
repudiation of the awakening of Christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic against these is also no
doubt of importance for determining the date; see XVII. 14-19. Peter says, § 18: τὸ ἀδιδάκτως ἄνευ ὀπτασίας
καὶ ὀνείρων μαθεῖν ἀποκάλυψίς ἐστιν, he had already learned that at his confession (Matt. XVI). The question,
ἔι τις δἰ ὀπτασίαν πρὸς διδασκαλίαν σοφισθῆναι δύναται, is answered in the negative, § 19.
253
2. They were not composed in their present form by heretical Christians, but most
probably by Catholics. Nor do they aim at forming a theological system,308 or spreading 312
the views of a sect. Their primary object is to oppose Greek polytheism, immoral mythology,
and false philosophy, and thus to promote edification.309
3. In describing the authors as Catholic, we do not mean that they were adherents of
the theology of Irenæus or Origen. The instructive point here, rather, is that they had as yet
no fixed theology, and therefore could without hesitation regard and use all possible mater-
ial as means of edification. In like manner, they had no fixed conception of the Apostolic
age, and could therefore appropriate motley and dangerous material. Such Christians, highly
educated and correctly trained too, were still to be found, not only in the third century, but
even later. But the authors do not seem to have been free from a bias, inasmuch as they did
not favour the Catholic, that is the Alexandrian, apologetic theology which was in process
of formation
4. The description of the Pseudo-Clementine writings, naturally derived from their very
form, as “edifying, didactic romances for the refutation of paganism,” is not inconsistent
with the idea that the authors at the same time did their utmost to oppose heretical phenom-
ena, especially the Marcionite church and Apelles, together with heresy and heathenism in
general, as represented by Simon Magus.
5. The objectionable materials which the authors made use of were edifying for them,
because of the position assigned therein to Peter, because of the ascetic and mysterious ele- 313
ments they contained, and the opposition offered to Simon, etc. The offensive features, so
far as they were still contained in these sources, had already become unintelligible and
harmless. They were partly conserved as such and partly removed.
6. The authors are to be sought for perhaps in Rome, perhaps in Syria, perhaps in both
places, certainly not in Alexandria.
7. The main ideas are: (1) The monarchy of God. (2) the syzygies (weak and strong).
(3) Prophecy (the true Prophet). (4) Stoical rationalism, belief in providence, good works,
φιλανθρωπία, etc. = Mosaism. The Homilies are completely saturated with stoicism, both
in their ethical and metaphysical systems, and are opposed to Platonism, though Plato is
quoted in Hom. XV. 8, as Ἑλλήνων τοφός τις (a wise man of the Greeks). In addition to
these ideas we have also a strong hierarchical tendency. The material which the authors
made use of was in great part derived from syncretistic Jewish Christian tradition, in other
words, those histories of the Apostles were here utilised which Epiphanius reports to have
308 This is also acknowledged in Koffmane, Die Gnosis, etc., p. 33.

309 The Homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the speeches of Peter and others. These speeches
oppose polytheism, mythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic morality and
rationalism. The polemic against Simon Magus almost appears as a mere accessory.
254
been used by the Ebionites (see above). It is not probable, however, that these writings in
their original form were in the hands of the narrators; the likelihood is that they made use
of them in revised forms.
8. It must be reserved for an accurate investigation to ascertain whether those modified
versions which betray clear marks of Hellenic origin were made within syncretistic Judaism
itself, or whether they are to be traced back to Catholic writers. In either case, they should
not be placed earlier than about the beginning of the third century, but in all probability
one or two generations later still.
9. If we adopt the first assumption, it is most natural to think of that propaganda which,
according to the testimony of Hippolytus and Origen, Jewish Christianity attempted in
Rome in the age of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, through the medium of the Syrian, Alcibiades.
This coincides with the last great advance of Syrian cults into the west, and is at the same
time the only one known to us historically. But it is further pretty generally admitted that
the immediate sources of the Pseudo-Clementines already presuppose the existence of
314
Elkesaite Christianity. We should accordingly have to assume that in the West this Chris-
tianity made greater concessions to the prevailing type, that it gave up circumcision and
accommodated itself to the Church system of Gentile Christianity, at the same time with-
drawing its polemic against Paul.
10. Meanwhile the existence of such a Jewish Christianity is not as yet proved, and
therefore we must reckon with the possibility that the remodelled form of the Jewish
Christian sources, already found in existence by the revisers of the Pseudo-Clementine Ro-
mances, was solely a Catholic literary product. In this assumption, which commends itself
both as regards the aim of the composition and its presupposed conditions, we must remem-
ber that, from the third century onwards, Catholic writers systematically corrected, and to
a great extent reconstructed, the heretical histories which were in circulation in the churches
as interesting reading, and that the extent and degree of this reconstruction varied exceed-
ingly, according to the theological and historical insight of the writer. The identifying of
pure Mosaism with Christianity was in itself by no means offensive when there was no further
question of circumcision. The clear distinction between the ceremonial and moral parts of
the Old Testament, could no longer prove an offence after the great struggle with Gnosti-
cism.310 The strong insistance upon the unity of God, and the rejection of the doctrine of
310 This distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the Church of the third century. But I confess I do not
know how Catholic circles got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the Homilies many passages
of the old Testament are simply characterised as untrue, immoral and lying. Here the Homilies remind one
strongly of the Syllogisms of Apelles, the author of which, in other respects, opposed them in the interest of his
doctrine of creating angels. In some passages the Christianity of the Homilies really looks like a syncretism
composed of the common Christianity, the Jewish Christian Gnosticism, and the criticism of Apelles. Hom.
VIII. 6-8 is also highly objectionable.
255
the Logos, were by no means uncommon in the beginning of the third century; and in the
speculations about Adam and Christ, in the views about God and the world and such like,
as set before us in the immediate sources of the Romances, the correct and edifying elements
315
must have seemed to outweigh the objectionable. At any rate, the historian who, until further
advised, denies the existence of a Jewish Christianity composed of the most contradictory
elements, lacking circumcision and national hopes, and bearing marks of Catholic and
therefore of Hellenic influence, judges more prudently than he who asserts, solely on the
basis of Romances which are accompanied by no tradition and have never been the objects
of assault, the existence of a Jewish Christianity accommodating itself to Catholicism which
is entirely unattested.
11. Be that as it may, it may at least be regarded as certain that the Pseudo-Clementines
contribute absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the origin of the Catholic Church and
doctrine, as they shew at best in their immediate sources a Jewish Christianity strongly in-
fluenced by Catholicism and Hellenism.
12. They must be used with great caution even in seeking to determine the tendencies
and inner history of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. It cannot be made out with certainty,
how far back the first sources of the Pseudo-Clementines date, or what their original form
and tendency were. As to the first point, it has indeed been said that Justin, nay, even the
author of the Acts of the Apostles, presupposes them, and that the Catholic tradition of
Peter in Rome and of Simon Magus are dependent on them (as is still held by Lipsius); but
there is so little proof of this adduced that in Christian literature up to the end of the second
century (Hegesippus?) we can only discover very uncertain traces of acquaintance with
Jewish Christian historical narrative. Such indications can only be found to any considerable
extent in the third century, and I do not mean to deny that the contents of the Jewish
Christian histories of the Apostles contributed materially to the formation of the ecclesiast-
ical legends about Peter. As is shewn in the Pseudo-Clementines, these histories of the
Apostles especially opposed Simon Magus and his adherents (the new Samaritan attempt
at a universal religion), and placed the authority of the Apostle Peter against them. But they
also opposed the Apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred Simonian features to Paul, and
316
Pauline features to Simon. Yet it is also possible that the Pauline traits found in the magician
were the outcome of the redaction, in so far as the whole polemic against Paul is here struck
out, though certain parts of it have been woven into the polemic against Simon. But probably
the Pauline features of the magician are merely an appearance. The Pseudo-Clementines
may to some extent be used, though with caution, in determining the doctrines of syncret-
istic Jewish Christianity. In connection with this we must take what Epiphanius says as our
standard. The Pantheistic and Stoic elements which are found here and there must of course
be eliminated. But the theory of the genesis of the world from a change in God himself (that
is from a προβολή), the assumption that all things emanated from God in antitheses (Son
256
of God—Devil; heaven—earth; male—female; male and female prophecy), nay, that these
antitheses are found in God himself (goodness, to which corresponds the Son of
God—punitive justice, to which corresponds the Devil), the speculations about the elements
which have proceeded from the one substance, the ignoring of freedom in the question
about the origin of evil, the strict adherence to the unity and absolute causality of God, in
spite of the dualism, and in spite of the lofty predicates applied to the Son of God—all this
plainly bears the Semitic Jewish stamp.
We must here content ourselves with these indications. They were meant to set forth
briefly the reasons which forbid our assigning to syncretistic Jewish Christianity, on the
basis of the Pseudo-Clementines, a place in the history of the genesis of the Catholic Church
and its doctrine.
Bigg, The Clementine Homilies (Studia Biblica et Eccles. II., p. 157 ff.), has propounded
the hypothesis that the Homilies are an Ebionitic revision of an older Catholic original (see
p. 184: “The Homilies as we have it, is a recast of an orthodox work by a highly unorthodox
editor.” P. 175: “The Homilies are surely the work of a Catholic convert to Ebionitism, who
thought he saw in the doctrine of the two powers the only tenable answer to Gnosticism.
We can separate his Catholicism from his Ebionitism just as surely as his Stoicism”). This
317
is the opposite of the view expressed by me in the text. I consider Bigg’s hypothesis well
worth examining, and at first sight not improbable; but I am not able to enter into it here.
318
257
Appendices
APPENDIX I.
On the Conception of Pre-existence.

On account of the importance of the question, we may be here permitted to amplify a
few hints given in Chap. II., § 4, and elsewhere, and to draw a clearer distinction between
the Jewish and Hellenic conceptions of pre-existence.
According to the theory held by the ancient Jews and by the whole of the Semitic nations,
everything of real value that from time to time appears on earth has its existence in heaven.
In other words, it exists with God, that is God possesses a knowledge of it; and for that
reason it has a real being. But it exists beforehand with God in the same way as it appears
on earth, that is with all the material attributes belonging to its essence. Its manifestation
on earth is merely a transition from concealment to publicity (φανεροῦσθαι). In becoming
visible to the senses, the object in question assumes no attribute that it did not already possess
with God. Hence its material nature is by no means an inadequate expression of it, nor is it
a second nature added to the first. The truth rather is that what was in heaven before is now
revealing itself upon earth, without any sort of alteration taking place in the process. There
is no assumptio naturæ novæ, and no change or mixture. The old Jewish theory of pre-exist-
ence is founded on the religious idea of the omniscience and omni-potence of God, that
God to whom the events of history do not come as a surprise, but who guides their course.
As the whole history of the world and the destiny of each individual are recorded on his
tablets or books, so also each thing is ever present before him. The decisive contrast is
between God and the creature. In designating the latter as “foreknown” by God, the primary
idea is not to ennoble the creature, but rather to bring to light the wisdom and power of
God. The ennobling of created things by attributing to them a pre-existence is a secondary
result (see below).
319
According to the Hellenic conception, which has become associated with Platonism,
the idea of pre-existence is independent of the idea of God; it is based on the conception of
the contrast between spirit and matter, between the infinite and finite, found in the cosmos
itself. In the case of all spiritual beings, life in the body or flesh is at bottom an inadequate
and unsuitable condition, for the spirit is eternal, the flesh perishable. But the pre-temporal
existence, which was only a doubtful assumption as regards ordinary spirits, was a matter
of certainty in the case of the higher and purer ones. They lived in an upper world long before
this earth was created, and they lived there as spirits without the “polluted garment of the
flesh.” Now if they resolved for some reason or other to appear in this finite world, they
cannot simply become visible, for they have no “visible form.” They must rather “assume
flesh,” whether they throw it about them as a covering, or really make it their own by a
process of transformation or mixture. In all cases—and here the speculation gave rise to the
most exciting problems—the body is to them something inadequate which they cannot ap-
258
Appendix I. On the Conception of Pre-existence
propriate without adopting certain measures of precaution, but this process may indeed
pass through all stages, from a mere seeming appropriation to complete union. The charac-
teristics of the Greek ideas of pre-existence may consequently be thus expressed. First, the
objects in question to which pre-existence is ascribed are meant to be ennobled by this at-
tribute. Secondly, these ideas have no relation to God. Thirdly, the material appearance is
regarded as something inadequate. Fourthly, speculations about phantasma, assumptio
naturæ humanæ, transmutatio, mixtura, duæ naturæ, etc., were necessarily associated with
these notions.
We see that these two conceptions are as wide apart as the poles. The first has a religious
origin, the second a cosmological and psychological; the first glorifies God, the second the
created spirit.
However, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist between these
speculations, but the Jewish conception is also found in a shape which seems to approximate 320
still more to the Greek one.

Earthly occurrences and objects are not only regarded as “foreknown” by God before
being seen in this world, but the latter manifestation is frequently considered as the copy
of the existence and nature which they possess in heaven, and which remains unalterably
the same, whether they appear upon earth or not. That which is before God experiences no
change. As the destinies of the world are recorded in the books, and God reads them there,
it being at the same time a matter of indifference, as regards this knowledge of his, when
and how they are accomplished upon earth, so the Tabernacle and its furniture, the Temple,
Jerusalem, etc., are before God and continue to exist before him in heaven, even during
their appearance on earth and after it.
This conception seems really to have been the oldest one. Moses is to fashion the Temple
and its furniture according to the pattern he saw on the Mount (Exod. XXV. 9. 40: XXVI.
30: XXVII. 8: Num. VIII. 4). The Temple and Jerusalem exist in heaven, and they are to be
distinguished from the earthly Temple and the earthly Jerusalem; yet the ideas of a
φανεροῦσθαι of the thing which is in heaven and of its copy appearing on earth, shade into
one another and are not always clearly separated.
The classing of things as original and copy was at first no more meant to glorify them
than was the conception of a pre-existence they possessed within the knowledge of God.
But since the view which in theory was true of everything earthly, was, as is naturally to be
expected, applied in practice to nothing but valuable objects—for things common and ever
recurring give no impulse to such speculations—the objects thus contemplated were en-
nobled, because they were raised above the multitude of the commonplace. At the same
time the theory of original and copy could not fail to become a starting point for new spec-
ulations, as soon as the contrast between the spiritual and material began to assume import-
ance among the Jewish people.
259
That took place under the influence of the Greek spirit; and was perhaps also the simul-
taneous result of an intellectual or moral development which arose independently of that 321
spirit. Accordingly, a highly important advance in the old ideas of pre-existence appeared
in the Jewish theological literature belonging to the time of the Maccabees and the following
decades. To begin with, these conceptions are now applied to persons, which, so far as I
know, was not the case before this (individualism). Secondly, the old distinction of original
and copy is now interpreted to mean that the copy is the inferior and more imperfect, that
in the present æon of the transient it cannot be equivalent to the original, and that we must
therefore look forward to the time when the original itself will make its appearance, (contrast
of the material and finite and the spiritual).
With regard to the first point, we have not only to consider passages in Apocalypses
and other writings in which pre-existence is attributed to Moses, the patriarchs, etc., (see
above, p. 102), but we must, above all, bear in mind utterances like Ps. CXXXIX. 15, 16. The
individual saint soars upward to the thought that the days of his life are in the book of God,
and that he himself was before God, whilst he was still unperfect. But, and this must not be
overlooked, it was not merely his spiritual part that was before God, for there is not the re-
motest idea of such a distinction, but the whole man, although he is ‫בָּשָׂר‬.
As regards the second point, the distinction between a heavenly and an earthly Jerusalem,
a heavenly and an earthly Temple, etc., is sufficiently known from the Apocalypses and the
New Testament. But the important consideration is that the sacred things of earth were re-
garded as objects of less value, instalments, as it were, pending the fulfilment of the whole
promise. The desecration and subsequent destruction of sacred things must have greatly
strengthened this idea. The hope of the heavenly Jerusalem comforted men for the desecration
or loss of the earthly one. But this gave at the same time the most powerful impulse to reflect
whether it was not an essential feature of this temporal state, that everything high and holy
in it could only appear in a meagre and inadequate form. Thus the transition to Greek ideas
was brought about. The fulness of the time had come when the old Jewish ideas, with a
322
slightly mythological colouring, could amalgamate with the ideal creations of Hellenic
philosophers.
These, however, are also the general conditions which gave rise to the earliest Jewish
speculations about a personal Messiah, except that, in the case of the Messianic ideas within
Judaism itself, the adoption of specifically Greek thoughts, so far as I am able to see, cannot
be made out.
Most Jews, as Trypho testifies in Justin’s Dialogue 49, conceived the Messiah as a man.
We may indeed go a step further and say that no Jew at bottom imagined him otherwise;
for even those who attached ideas of pre-existence to him, and gave the Messiah a supernat-
ural background, never advanced to speculations about assumption of the flesh, incarnation,
two natures and the like. They only transferred in a specific manner to the Messiah the old
260
idea of pre-terrestrial existence with God, universally current among the Jews. Before the
creation of the world the Messiah was hidden with God, and, when the time is fulfilled, he
makes his appearance. This is neither an incarnation nor a humiliation, but he appears on
earth as he exists before God, viz., as a mighty and just king, equipped with all gifts. The
writings in which this thought appears most clearly are the Apocalypse of Enoch (Book of
Similitudes, Chap. 46-49) and the Apocalypse of Esra (Chap. 12-14). Support to this idea,
if anything more of the kind had been required, was lent by passages like Daniel VII. 13 f.
and Micah, V. 1. Nowhere do we find in Jewish writings a conception which advances beyond
the notion that the Messiah is the man who is with God in heaven; and who will make his
appearance at his own time. We are merely entitled to say that, as the same idea was not
applied to all persons with the same certainty, it was almost unavoidable that men’s minds
should have been led to designate the Messiah as the man from heaven. This thought was
adopted by Paul (see below), but I know of no Jewish writing which gave clear expression
to it.
Jesus Christ designated himself as the Messiah, and the first of his disciples who recog-
nised him as such were native Jews. The Jewish conceptions of the Messiah consequently 323
passed over into the Christian community. But they received an impulse to important
modifications from the living impression conveyed by the person and destiny of Jesus. Three
facts were here of pre-eminent importance. First, Jesus appeared in lowliness, and even
suffered death. Secondly, he was believed to be exalted through the resurrection to the right
hand of God, and his return in glory was awaited with certainty. Thirdly, the strength of a
new life and of an indissoluble union with God was felt issuing from him, and therefore his
people were connected with him in the closest way.
In some old Christian writings found in the New Testament and emanating from the
pen of native Jews, there are no speculations at all about the pre-temporal existence of Jesus
as the Messiah, or they are found expressed in a manner which simply embodies the old
Jewish theory and is merely distinguished from it by the emphasis laid on the exaltation of
Jesus after death through the resurrection. 1. Pet. I. 18 ff. is a classic passage: ἐλυτρώθητε
τιμίῳ αἵματι ὼς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ, προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν
τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα
εἶναι εἰς θεόν. Here we find a conception of the pre-existence of Christ which is not yet af-
fected by cosmological or psychological speculation, which does not overstep the boundaries
of a purely religious contemplation, and which arose from the Old Testament way of
thinking, and the living impression derived from the person of Jesus. He is “fore-known
(by God) before the creation of the world,” not as a spiritual being without a body, but as a
Lamb without blemish and without spot; in other words, his whole personality together
with the work which it was to carry out, was within God’s eternal knowledge. He “was
261
manifested in these last days for our sake,” that is, he is now visibly what he already was
before God. What is meant here is not an incarnation, but a revelatio. Finally, he appeared
in order that our faith and hope should now be firmly directed to the living God, that God
who raised him from the dead and gave him honour. In the last clause expression is given
to the specifically Christian thought, that the Messiah Jesus was exalted after crucifixion
324
and death; from this, however, no further conclusions are drawn.
But it was impossible that men should everywhere rest satisfied with these utterances,
for the age was a theological one. Hence the paradox of the suffering Messiah, the certainty
of his glorification through the resurrection, the conviction of his specific relationship to
God, and the belief in the real union of his Church with him did not seem adequately ex-
pressed by the simple formulæ προεγνωσμένος, φανερωθείς. In reference to all these points,
we see even in the oldest Christian writings, the appearance of formulæ which fix more
precisely the nature of his pre-existence, or in other words his heavenly existence. With regard
to the first and second points there arose the view of humiliation and exaltation, such as we
find in Paul and in numerous writings after him. In connection with the third point the
concept “Son of God” was thrust into the fore-ground, and gave rise to the idea of the image
of God (2 Cor. IV. 4; Col. I. 15; Heb. I. 2; Phil. II. 6). The fourth point gave occasion to the
formation of theses, such as we find in Rom. VIII. 29: πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖσ,
Col. I. 18: πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (Rev. I. 5), Eph. II. 6: συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, I. 4: ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου, I. 22: ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκεν τὸν Χριστὸν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ
σῶμα αὐτοῦ, etc. This purely religious view of the Church, according to which all that is
predicated of Christ is also applied to his followers, continued a considerable time. Hermas
declares that the Church is older than the world, and that the world was created for its sake
(see above, p. 103), and the author of the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement declares (Chap.
14) . . . . . . . ἔσομεθα ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ
σελήνης ἐκτισμένης . . . . , οὐκ οἴομαι δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ἐστιν
Χριστοῦ. λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή. Ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. τὸ ἄρσεν
ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία. Thus Christ and his Church are inseparably connected.
The latter is to be conceived as pre-existent quite as much as the former; the Church was
also created before the sun and the moon, for the world was created for its sake. This con-
325
ception of the Church illustrates a final group of utterances about the pre-existent Christ,
the origin of which might easily be misinterpreted unless we bear in mind their reference
to the Church. In so far as he is προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, he is the ἀρχὴ τῆς
κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. III. 14), the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, etc. According to the current
conception of the time, these expressions mean exactly the same as the simple προεγνωσμένος
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, as is proved by the parallel formulæ referring to the Church. Nay,
even the further advance to the idea that the world was created by him (Cor. Col. Eph. Heb.)
262
need not yet necessarily be a μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος; for the beginning of things (ἀρχή)
and their purpose form the real force to which their origin is due (principle ἀρχή). Hermas
indeed calls the Church older than the world simply because “the world was created for its
sake.”
All these further theories which we have quoted up to this time need in no sense alter
the original conception, so long as they appear in an isolated form and do not form the basis
of fresh speculations. They may be regarded as the working out of the original conception
attaching to Jesus Christ προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθείς κ.τ.λ.; and
do not really modify this religious view of the matter. Above all, we find in them as yet no
certain transition to the Greek view which splits up his personality into a heavenly and an
earthly portion; it still continues to be the complete Christ to whom all the utterances apply.
But, beyond doubt, they already reveal the strong impulse to conceive the Christ that had
appeared as a divine being. He had not been a transitory phenomenon, but has ascended
into heaven and still continues to live. This post-existence of his gave to the ideas of his pre-
existence a support and a concrete complexion which the earlier Jewish theories lacked.
We find the transition to a new conception in the writings of Paul. But it is important
to begin by determining the relationship between his Christology and the views we have
been hitherto considering. In the Apostle’s clearest trains of thought everything that he has
to say of Christ hinges on his death and resurrection. For this we need no proofs, but see,
326
more
especially Rom. I. 3 f.: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ
σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἀγιωςύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως
νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. What Christ became and his significance for us
now are due to his death on the cross and his resurrection. He condemned sin in the flesh
and was obedient unto death. Therefore he now shares in the δόξα of God. The exposition
in 1 Cor. XV. 45, also (ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ
πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν. ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός
ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) is still capable of being understood as to its fundamental
features, in a sense which agrees with the conception of the Messiah, as κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the
man from heaven who was hidden with God. There can be no doubt, however, that this
conception, as already shewn by the formulæ in the passage just quoted, formed to Paul the
starting-point of a speculation, in which the original theory assumed a completely new
shape. The decisive factors in this transformation were the Apostle’s doctrine of “spirit and
flesh,” and the corresponding conviction that the Christ who is not be known “after the
flesh,” is a spirit, namely, the mighty spiritual being (πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν), who has con-
demned sin in the flesh, and thereby enabled man to walk not after the flesh, but after the
spirit.
263
According to one of the Apostle’s ways of regarding the matter, Christ, after the accom-
plishment of his work, became the πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν through the resurrection. But the
belief that Jesus always stood before God as the heavenly man, suggested to Paul the other
view, that Christ was always a “spirit,” that he was sent down by God, that the flesh is con-
sequently something inadequate and indeed hostile to him, that he nevertheless assumed it
in order to extirpate the sin dwelling in the flesh, that he therefore humbled himself by ap-
pearing, and that this humiliation was the deed he performed.
This view is found in 2 Cor. VIII. 9: Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν;
in Rom. VIII. 3: ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὑιὸν πόμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ 327
ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῆ σαρκί; and in Phil. II. 5 f.: Χριστος Ἰησοῦς ἐν
μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων . . . . . ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μόρφην δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι
ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, καὶ σχήματι εὐρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν κ.τ.λ. In
both forms of thought Paul presupposes a real exaltation of Christ. Christ receives after the
resurrection more than he ever possessed (τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα). In this view Paul
retains a historical interpretation of Christ, even in the conception of the πνεῦμα Χριστός.
But whilst many passages seem to imply that the work of Christ began with suffering and
death, Paul shews in the verses cited, that he already conceives the appearance of Christ on
earth as his moral act, as a humiliation, purposely brought about by God and Christ himself,
which reaches its culminating point in the death on the cross. Christ, the divine spiritual
being, is sent by the Father from heaven to earth, and of his own free will he obediently takes
this mission upon himself. He appears in the ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, dies the death
of the cross, and then, raised by the Father, ascends again into heaven in order henceforth
to act as the κύριος ζώντων and νεκρῶν, and to become to his own people the principle of
a new life in the spirit.
Whatever we may think about the admissibility and justification of this view, to whatever
source we may trace its origin and however strongly we may emphasise its divergencies
from the contemporaneous Hellenic ideas, it is certain that it approaches very closely to the
latter; for the distinction of spirit and flesh is here introduced into the concept of pre-exist-
ence, and this combination is not found in the Jewish notions of the Messiah.
Paul was the first who limited the idea of pre-existence by referring it solely to the
spiritual part of Jesus Christ, but at the same time gave life to it by making the pre-existing
Christ (the spirit) a being who, even during his pre-existence, stands independently side by
side with God.
He was also the first to designate Christ’s σάρξ as “assumpta,” and to recognise its as-
sumption as in itself a humiliation. To him the appearance of Christ was no mere
φανεροῦσθαι, but a κενοῦσθαι, ταπεινοῦσθαι, πτωχεύειν.
328
These outstanding features of the Pauline Christology must have been intelligible to the
Greeks, but, whilst embracing these, they put everything else in the system aside, Χριστὸς
264
ὁ κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σάρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν,
says 2 Clem. (9. 5), and that is also the Christology of 1 Clement, Barnabas and many other
Greeks. From the sum total of Judæo-Christian speculations they only borrowed, in addition,
the one which has been already mentioned: the Messiah as προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου is for that very reason also ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, that is the beginning,
purpose and principle of the creation The Greeks, as the result of their cosmological interest,
embraced this thought as a fundamental proposition. The complete Greek Christology then
is expressed as follows: Χριστὸς, ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὡν
̀ μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα καὶ πάσης κτίσεως
ἀρχὴ, ἐγένετο σάρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. That is the fundamental, theological and
philosophical creed on which the whole Trinitarian and Christological speculations of the
Church of the succeeding centuries are built, and it is thus the root of the orthodox system
of dogmatics; for the notion that Christ was the ἀρχὴ πάσης κτίσεως necessarily led in some
measure to the conception of Christ as the Logos. For the Logos had long been regarded by
cultured men as the beginning and principle of the creation.142
142 These hints will have shewn that Paul’s theory occupies a middle position between the Jewish and Greek
ideas of pre-existence. In the canon, however, we have another group of writings which likewise gives evidence
of a middle position with regard to the matter, I mean the Johannine writings. If we only possessed the prologue
to the Gospel of John with its “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος” the “πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο” and the “ὁ λόγος σάρξ
ἐγένετο” we could indeed point to nothing but Hellenic ideas. But the Gospel itself, as is well known, contains
very much that must have astonished a Greek, and is opposed to the philosophical idea of the Logos. This occurs
even in the thought, “ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο,” which in itself is foreign to the Logos conception. Just fancy a
proposition like the one in VI. 44, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρὸς με, εἄν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύση αὐτὸν,
or in V. 17. 21, engrafted on Philo’s system, and consider the revolution it would have caused there. No doubt
the prologue to some extent contains the themes set forth in the presentation that follows, but they are worded
in such a way that one cannot help thinking the author wished to prepare Greek readers for the paradox he had
to communicate to them, by adapting his prologue to their mode of thought. Under the altered conditions of
thought which now prevail, the prologue appears to us the mysterious part, and the narrative that follows seems
the portion that is relatively more intelligible. But to the original readers, if they were educated Greeks, the
prologue must have been the part most easily understood. As nowadays a section on the nature of the Christian
religion is usually prefixed to a treatise on dogmatics, in order to prepare and introduce the reader, so also the
Johannine prologue seems to be intended as an introduction of this kind. It brings in conceptions which were
familiar to the Greeks, in fact it enters into these more deeply than is justified by the presentation which follows;
for the notion of the incarnate Logos is by no means the dominant one here. Though faint echoes of this idea
may possibly be met with here and there in the Gospel—I confess I do not notice them—the predominating
thought is essentially the conception of Christ as the Son of God, who obediently executes what the Father has
shewn and appointed him. The works which he does are allotted to him, and he performs them in the strength
of the Father. The whole of Christ’s farewell discourses and the intercessory prayer evince no Hellenic influence
and no cosmological speculation whatever, but shew the inner life of a man who knows himself to be one with
265
With this transition the theories concerning Christ are removed from Jewish and Old
Testament soil, and also that of religion (in the strict sense of the word), and transplanted 329
to the Greek one. Even in his pre-existent state Christ is an independent power existing side
by side with God. The pre-existence does not refer to his whole appearance, but only to a
part of his essence; it does not primarily serve to glorify the wisdom and power of the God
who guides history, but only glorifies Christ, and thereby threatens the monarchy of God.143
330
The appearance of Christ is now an “assumption of flesh,” and immediately the intricate
questions about the connection of the heavenly and spiritual being with the flesh simultan-
eously arise and are at first settled by the theories of a naive docetism. But the flesh, that is
the human nature created by God, appears depreciated, because it was reckoned as something
unsuitable for Christ, and foreign to him as a spiritual being. Thus the Christian religion
was mixed up with the refined asceticism of a perishing civilization, and a foreign substruc-
ture given to its system of morality, so earnest in its simplicity.144 But the most questionable
result was the following. Since the predicate “Logos,” which at first, and for a long time,
God to a greater extent than any before him, and who feels the leading of men to God to be the task he had received
and accomplished. In this consciousness he speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world was
(XVII. 4 f.: ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὁ δέδωκας μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· καὶ νῦν δόξασον με σύ,
πάτερ, παρὰ σέαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ῇ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοι). With this we must compare verses
like III. 13: οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and
III. 31: ὁ ἄνωθεν ὲρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστιν. ὁ ὤν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ ὁ ἐκ
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστιν (see also I. 30: VI. 33, 38, 41 f. 50 f. 58, 62: VIII. 14, 58; XVII. 24).
But though the pre-existence is strongly expressed in these passages, a separation of τνεῦμα (λόγος) and σάρξ
in Christ is nowhere assumed in the Gospel except in the prologue. It is always Christ’s whole personality to
which every sublime attribute is ascribed. The same one who “can do nothing of himself” is also the one who
was once glorious and will yet be glorified. This idea, however, can still be referred to the προεγνωσμένος πρὸ
καταβολῆς κόσμου, although it gives a peculiar δοξα with God to him who was foreknown of God, and the
oldest conception is yet to be traced in many expressions, as, for example, I. 31: κάγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽
ἵνα φανερωθή τῷ Ἰσρὰηλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον, V. 19: οὐ δύναται ὁ ὐιὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ εἀυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἄν μή τι βλέπῃ
τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, V. 36: VIII. 38: ἅ ἐγὼ ἑω
́ ρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῷ, VIII. 40: τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα
ἥν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, XII. 49: XV. 15: πάντα ἅ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἔγνώρισα ὐμῖν.
143 This is indeed counterbalanced in the fourth Gospel by the thought of the complete community of love
between the Father and the Son, and the pre-existence and descent of the latter here also tend to the glory of
God. In the sentence “God so loved the world,” etc., that which Paul describes in Phil. II. becomes at the same
time an act of God, in fact the act of God. The sentence “God is love” sums up again all individual speculations,
and raises them into a new and most exalted sphere.
144 If it had been possible for speculation to maintain the level of the Fourth Gospel, nothing of that would
have happened; but where were there theologians capable of this?
266
coincided with the idea of the reason ruling in the cosmos, was considered as the highest
that could be given to Christ, the holy and divine element, namely, the power of a new life,
a power to be viewed and laid hold of in Christ, was transformed into a cosmic force and
thereby secularised.
In the present work I have endeavoured to explain fully how the doctrine of the Church
developed from these premises into the doctrine of the Trinity and of the two natures. I
have also shewn that the imperfect beginnings of Church doctrine, especially as they appear
in the Logos theory derived from cosmology, were subjected to wholesome corrections—by
the Monarchians, by Athanasius, and by the influence of biblical passages which pointed
in another direction. Finally, the Logos doctrine received a form in which the idea was de-
prived of nearly all cosmical content. Nor could the Hellenic contrast of “spirit” and “flesh”
331
become completely developed in Christianity, because the belief in the bodily resurrection
of Christ, and in the admission of the flesh into heaven, opposed to the principle of dualism
a barrier which Paul as yet neither knew nor felt to be necessary. The conviction as to the
resurrection of the flesh proved the hard rock which shattered the energetic attempts to give
a completely Hellenic complexion to the Christian religion.
The history of the development of the ideas of pre-existence is at the same time the
criticism of them, so that we need not have recourse to our present theory of knowledge
which no longer allows such speculations. The problem of determining the significance of
Christ through a speculation concerning his natures, and of associating with these the con-
crete features of the historical Christ, was originated by Hellenism. But even the New Test-
ament writers, who appear in this respect to be influenced in some way by Hellenism, did
not really speculate concerning the different natures, but, taking Christ’s spiritual nature
for granted, determined his religious significance by his moral qualities—Paul by the moral
act of humiliation and obedience unto death, John by the complete dependence of Christ
upon God and hence also by his obedience, as well as the unity of the love of Father and
Son. There is only one idea of pre-existence which no empiric contemplation of history and
no reason can uproot. This is identical with the most ancient idea found in the Old Testament,
as well as that prevalent among the early Christians, and consists in the religious thought
that God the Lord directs history. In its application to Jesus Christ, it is contained in the
words we read in 1 Pet. I. 20: προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθεὶς δὲ
δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ
δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.
332
267
Appendix II. On Liturgies and the Genesis of Dogma
APPENDIX II.
Liturgy and the Origin of Dogma.

The reader has perhaps wondered why I have made so little reference to Liturgy in my
description of the origin of dogma. For according to the most modern ideas about the history
of religion and the origin of theology, the development of both may be traced in the ritual.
Without any desire to criticise these notions, I think I am justified in asserting that this is
another instance of the exceptional nature of Christianity. For a considerable period it
possessed no ritual at all, and the process of development in this direction had been going
on, or been completed, a long time before ritual came to furnish material for dogmatic dis-
cussion.
The worship in Christian Churches grew out of that in the synagogues, whereas there
is no trace of its being influenced by the Jewish Temple service (Duchesne, Origines du
Culte Chrétien, p. 45 ff.). Its oldest constituents are accordingly prayer, reading of the
scriptures, application of scripture texts, and sacred song. In addition to these we have, as
specifically Christian elements, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and the utterances of
persons inspired by the Spirit. The latter manifestations, however, ceased in the course of
the second century, and to some extent as early as its first half. The religious services in
which a ritual became developed were prayer, the Lord’s Supper and sacred song. The
Didache had already prescribed stated formulæ for prayer. The ritual of the Lord’s Supper
was determined in its main features by the memory of its institution. The sphere of sacred
song remained the most unfettered, though here also, even at an early period—no later in
fact than the end of the first and beginning of the second century—a fixed and a variable
element were distinguished; for responsory hymns, as is testified by the Epistle of Pliny and
the still earlier Book of Revelation, require to follow a definite arrangement. But the whole,
333
though perhaps already fixed during the course of the second century, still bore the stamp
of spirituality and freedom. It was really worship in spirit and in truth, and this and no
other was the light in which the Apologists, for instance, regarded it. Ritualism did not begin
to be a power in the Church till the end of the second century; though it had been cultivated
by the “Gnostics” long before, and traces of it are found at an earlier period in some of the
older Fathers, such as Ignatius.
Among the liturgical fragments still preserved to us from the first three centuries two
strata may de distinguished. Apart from the responsory hymns in the Book of Revelation,
which can hardly represent fixed liturgical pieces, the only portions of the older stratum in
our possession are the Lord’s Prayer, originating with Jesus himself and used as a liturgy,
together with the sacramental prayers of the Didache. These prayers exhibit a style unlike
any of the liturgical formulæ of later times; the prayer is exclusively addressed to God, it
returns thanks for knowledge and life; it speaks of Jesus the παῖς θεοῦ (Son of God) as the
268
Appendix II. On Liturgies and the Genesis of Dogma
mediator; the intercession refers exclusively to the Church, and the supplication is for the
gathering together of the Church, the hastening of the coming of the kingdom and the de-
struction of the world. No direct mention is made of the death and resurrection of Christ.
These prayers are the peculiar property of the Christian Church. It cannot, however, be said
that they exercised any important influence on the history of dogma. The thoughts contained
in them perished in their specific shape; the measure of permanent importance they attained
in a more general form, was not preserved to them through these prayers.
The second stratum of liturgical pieces dates back to the great prayer with which the
first Epistle of Clement ends, for in many respects this prayer, though some expressions in
it remind us of the older type διά τοῦ ἡγαπημένου παιδός σου Ἰησοῦν Χριστοῦ, “through
thy beloved son Jesus Christ”), already exhibits the characteristics of the later liturgy, as is
shewn, for example, by a comparison of the liturgical prayer in the Constitutions of the
Apostles (see Lightfoot’s edition and my own). But this piece shews at the same time that
334
the liturgical prayers, and consequently the liturgy also, sprang from those in the synagogue,
for the similarity is striking. Here we find a connection resembling that which exists between
the Jewish “Two Ways” and the Christian instruction of catechumens. If this observation
is correct, it clearly explains the cautious use of historical and dogmatic material in the
oldest liturgies—a precaution not to their disadvantage. As in the prayers of the synagogue,
so also in Christian Churches, all sorts of matters were not submitted to God or laid bare
before Him, but the prayers serve as a religious ceremony, that is, as adoration, petition and
intercession. Σὺ εἶ ὁ θεὸς μόνος καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς σου καὶ ἡμεῖς λαός σου καὶ
πρόβατα τῆς νομῆς σου, (thou art God alone and Jesus Christ is thy son, and we are thy
people and the sheep of thy pasture). In this confession, and expressive Christian modification
of that of the synagogue, the whole liturgical ceremony is epitomised. So far as we can assume
and conjecture from the scanty remains of Ante-Nicene liturgy, the character of the ceremony
was not essentially altered in this respect. Nothing containing a specific dogma or theological
speculation was admitted. The number of sacred ceremonies, already considerable in the
second century, (how did they arise?) was still further increased in the third; but the accom-
panying words, so far as we know, expressed nothing but adoration, gratitude, supplication
and intercession. The relations expressed in the liturgy became more comprehensive, copious
and detailed; but its fundamental character was not changed. The history of dogma in the
first three centuries is not reflected in their liturgy.
335
269
Appendix III. On Neoplatonism
APPENDIX III.
NEOPLATONISM.
The Historical Significance and Position of Neoplatonism.
The political history of the ancient world ends with the Empire of Diocletian and Con-
stantine, which has not only Roman and Greek, but also Oriental features. The history of
ancient philosophy ends with the universal philosophy of Neoplatonism, which assimilated
the elements of most of the previous systems, and embodied the result of the history of reli-
gion and civilisation in East and West. But as the Roman Byzantine Empire is at one and
the same time a product of the final effort and the exhaustion of the ancient world, so also
Neoplatonism is, on one side, the completion of ancient philosophy, and, on another, its
abolition. Never before in the Greek and Roman theory of the world did the conviction of
the dignity of man and his elevation above nature attain so certain an expression as in
Neoplatonism; and never before in the history of civilisation did its highest exponents,
notwithstanding all their progress in inner observation, so much undervalue the sovereign
significance of real science and pure knowledge as the later Neoplatonists did. Judged from
the stand-point of pure science, of empirical knowledge of the world, the philosophy of
Plato and Aristotle marks a momentous turning-point, the post-Aristotelian a retrogression,
the Neoplatonic a complete declension. But judging from the stand-point of religion and
morality, it must be admitted that the ethical temper which Neoplatonism sought to beget
and confirm was the highest and purest which the culture of the ancient world produced.
This necessarily took place at the expense of science: for on the soil of polytheistic natural
religions, the knowledge of nature must either fetter and finally abolish religion, or be fettered
and abolished by religion. Religion and ethic, however, proved the stronger powers. Placed
336
between these and the knowledge of nature, philosophy, after a period of fluctuation finally
follows the stronger force. Since the ethical itself, in the sphere of natural religions, is unhes-
itatingly conceived as a higher kind of “nature,” conflict with the empirical knowledge of
the world is unavoidable. The higher “physics,” for that is what religious ethics is here, must
displace the lower or be itself displaced. Philosophy must renounce its scientific aspect, in
order that man’s claim to a supernatural value of his person and life may be legitimised.
It is an evidence of the vigour of man’s moral endowments that the only epoch of culture
which we are able to survey in its beginnings, its progress, and its close, ended not with
materialism, but with the most decided idealism. It is true that in its way this idealism also
denotes a bankruptcy; as the contempt for reason and science, and these are contemned
when relegated to the second place, finally leads to barbarism, because it results in the crassest
superstition, and is exposed to all manner of imposture. And, as a matter of fact, barbarism
succeeded the flourishing period of Neoplatonism. Philosophers themselves no doubt found
their mental food in the knowledge which they thought themselves able to surpass; but the
270
masses grew up in superstition, and the Christian Church, which entered on the inheritance
of Neoplatonism, was compelled to reckon with that and come to terms with it. Just when
the bankruptcy of the ancient civilisation and its lapse into barbarism could not have failed
to reveal themselves, a kindly destiny placed on the stage of history barbarian nations, for
whom the work of a thousand years had as yet no existence. Thus the fact is concealed,
which, however, does not escape the eye of one who looks below the surface, that the inner
history of the ancient world must necessarily have degenerated into barbarism of its own
accord, because it ended with the renunciation of this world. There is no desire either to
enjoy it, to master it, or to know it as it really is. A new world is disclosed for which everything
is given up, and men are ready to sacrifice insight and understanding, in order to possess
this world with certainty; and, in the light which radiates from the world to come, that which
337
in this world appears absurd becomes wisdom, and wisdom becomes folly.
Such is Neoplatonism. The pre-Socratic philosophers, declared by the followers of So-
crates to be childish, had freed themselves from theology, that is the mythology of the poets,
and constructed a philosophy from the observation of nature, without troubling themselves
about ethics and religion. In the systems of Plato and Aristotle physics and ethics were to
attain to their rights, though the latter no doubt already occupied the first place; theology,
that is popular religion, continues to be thrust aside. The post-Aristotelian philosophers of
all parties were already beginning to withdraw from the objective world. Stoicism, indeed,
seems to fall back into the materialism that prevailed before Plato and Aristotle; but the
ethical dualism which dominated the mood of the Stoic philosophers did not in the long
run tolerate the materialistic physics; it sought and found help in the metaphysical dualism
of the Platonists, and at the same time reconciled itself to the popular religion by means of
allegorism, that is it formed a new theology. But it did not result in permanent philosophic
creations. A one-sided development of Platonism produced the various forms of scepticism
which sought to abolish confidence in empirical knowledge. Neoplatonism, which came
last, learned from all schools. In the first place, it belongs to the series of post-Aristotelian
systems and, as the philosophy of the subjective, it is the logical completion of them. In the
second place, it rests on scepticism; for it also, though not at the very beginning, gave up
both confidence and pure interest in empirical knowledge. Thirdly, it can boast of the name
and authority of Plato; for in metaphysics it consciously went back to him and expressly
opposed the metaphysics of the Stoics. Yet on this very point it also learned something from
the Stoics; for the Neoplatonic conception of the action of God on the world, and of the
nature and origin of matter, can only be explained by reference to the dynamic pantheism
of the Stoics. In other respects, especially in psychology, it is diametrically opposed to the
Stoa, though superior. Fourthly, the study of Aristotle also had an influence on Neoplatonism.
That is shewn not only in the philosophic methods of the Neoplatonists, but also, though
338
in a subordinate way, in their metaphysics. Fifthly, the ethic of the Stoics was adopted by
271
Neoplatonism, but this ethic necessarily gave way to a still higher view of the conditions of
the spirit. Sixthly and finally, Christianity also, which Neoplatonism opposed in every form
(especially in that of the Gnostic philosophy of religion), seems not to have been entirely
without influence. On this point we have as yet no details, and these can only be ascertained
by a thorough examination of the polemic of Plotinus against the Gnostics.
Hence, with the exception of Epicureanism, which Neoplatonism dreaded as its mortal
enemy, every important system of former times was drawn upon by the new philosophy.
But we should not on that account call Neoplatonism an eclectic system in the usual sense
of the word. For in the first place, it had one pervading and all-predominating interest, the
religious; and in the second place, it introduced into philosophy a new supreme principle,
the super-rational, or the super-essential. This principle should not be identified with the
“Ideas” of Plato or the “Form” of Aristotle. For as Zeller rightly says: “In Plato and Aristotle
the distinction of the sensuous and the intelligible is the strongest expression for belief in
the truth of thought; it is only sensuous perception and sensuous existence whose relative
falsehood they presuppose; but of a higher stage of spiritual life lying beyond idea and
thought, there is no mention. In Neoplatonism, on the other hand, it is just this super-ra-
tional element which is regarded as the final goal of all effort, and the highest ground of all
existence; the knowledge gained by thought is only an intermediate stage between sensuous
perception and the super-rational intuition; the intelligible forms are not that which is
highest and last, but only the media by which the influences of the formless original essence
are communicated to the world. This view therefore presupposes not merely doubt of the
reality of sensuous existence and sensuous notions, but absolute doubt, aspiration beyond
all reality. The highest intelligible is not that which constitutes the real content of thought,
but only that which is presupposed and earnestly desired by man as the unknowable ground
339
of his thought.” Neoplatonism recognised that a religious ethic can be built neither on sense-
perception nor on knowledge gained by the understanding, and that it cannot be justified
by these; it therefore broke both with intellectual ethics and with utilitarian morality. But
for that very reason, having as it were parted with perception and understanding in relation
to the ascertaining of the highest truth, it was compelled to seek for a new world and a new
function in the human spirit, in order to ascertain the existence of what it desired, and to
comprehend and describe that of which it had ascertained the existence. But man cannot
transcend his psychological endowment. An iron ring incloses him. He who does not allow
his thought to be determined by experience falls a prey to fancy, that is thought which cannot
be suppressed assumes a mythological aspect: superstition takes the place of reason, dull
gazing at something incomprehensible is regarded as the highest goal of the spirit’s efforts,
and every conscious activity of the spirit is subordinated to visionary conditions artificially
brought about. But that every conceit may not be allowed to assert itself, the gradual explor-
ation of every region of knowledge according to every method of acquiring it, is demanded
272
as a preliminary—the Neoplatonists did not make matters easy for themselves,—and a new
and mighty principle is set up which is to bridle fancy, viz., the authority of a sure tradition.
This authority must be superhuman, otherwise it would not come under consideration; it
must therefore be divine. On divine disclosures, that is revelations, must rest both the highest
super-rational region of knowledge and the possibility of knowledge itself. In a word, the
philosophy which Neoplatonism represents, whose final interest is the religious, and whose
highest object is the super-rational, must be a philosophy of revelation.
In the case of Plotinus himself and his immediate disciples, this does not yet appear
plainly. They still shew confidence in the objective presuppositions of their philosophy; and
have, especially in psychology, done great work and created something new. But this confid-
ence vanishes in the later Neoplatonists. Porphyry, be-fore he became a disciple of Plotinus,
340
wrote a book περὶ τῆς ἐκλογίων φιλοσοφίας; as a philosopher he no longer required the
“λόγια”. But the later representatives of the system sought for their philosophy revelations
of the Godhead. They found them in the religious traditions and cults of all nations. Neo-
platonism learned from the Stoics to rise above the political limits of nations and states, and
to widen the Hellenic consciousness to a universally human one. The spirit of God has
breathed throughout the whole history of the nations, and the traces of divine revelation
are to be found everywhere. The older a religious tradition or cultus is, the more worthy of
honour, the more rich in thoughts of God it is. Therefore the old Oriental religions are of
special value to the Neoplatonists. The allegorical method of interpreting myths, which was
practised by the Stoics in particular, was accepted by Neoplatonism also. But the myths,
spiritually explained, have for this system an entirely different value from what they had for
the Stoic philosophers. The latter adjusted themselves to the myths by the aid of allegorical
explanation; the later Neoplatonists, on the other hand, (after a selection in which the im-
moral myths were sacrificed, see, e.g., Julian) regarded them as the proper material and sure
foundation of philosophy. Neoplatonism claims to be not only the absolute philosophy,
completing all systems, but at the same time the absolute religion, confirming and explaining
all earlier religions. A rehabilitation of all ancient religions is aimed at (see the philosophic
teachers of Julian and compare his great religious experiment); each was to continue in its
traditional form, but at the same time each was to communicate the religious temper and
the religious knowledge which Neoplatonism had attained, and each cultus is to lead to the
high morality which it behoves man to maintain. In Neoplatonism the psychological fact
of the longing of man for something higher, is exalted to the all-predominating principle
which ex-plains the world. Therefore the religions, though they are to be purified and spir-
itualised, become the foundation of philosophy. The Neoplatonic philosophy therefore
presupposes the religious syncretism of the third century, and cannot be understood without
it. The great forces which were half unconsciously at work in this syncretism, were reflectively
341
grasped by Neoplatonism. It is the final fruit of the developments resulting from the political,
273
national and religious syncretism which arose from the undertakings of Alexander the Greek
and the Romans.
Neoplatonism is consequently a stage in the history of religion; nay, its significance in
the history of the world lies in the fact that it is so. In the history of science and enlightenment
it has a position of significance only in so far as it was the necessary transition stage through
which humanity had to pass, in order to free itself from the religion of nature and the depre-
ciation of the spiritual life, which oppose an insurmountable barrier to the highest advance
of human knowledge. But as Neoplatonism in its philosophical aspect means the abolition
of ancient philosophy, which, however, it desired to complete, so also in its religious aspect
it means the abolition of the ancient religions which it aimed at restoring. For in requiring
these religions to mediate a definite religious knowledge, and to lead to the highest moral
disposition, it burdened them with tasks to which they were not equal, and under which
they could not but break down. And in requiring them to loosen, if not completely destroy,
the bond which was their only stay, namely, the political bond, it took from them the
foundation on which they were built. But could it not place them on a greater and firmer
foundation? Was not the Roman Empire in existence, and could the new religion not become
dependent on this in the same way as the earlier religions had been dependent on the lesser
states and nations? It might be thought so, but it was no longer possible. No doubt the
political history of the nations round the Mediterranean, in their development into the
universal Roman monarchy, was parallel to the spiritual history of these nations in their
development into monotheism and a universal system of morals; but the spiritual develop-
ment in the end far outstripped the political: even the Stoics attained to a height which the
political development could only partially reach. Neoplatonism did indeed attempt to gain
a connection with the Byzantine Roman Empire: one noble monarch, Julian, actually perished
as a result of this endeavour: but even before this the profounder Neoplatonists discerned
that their lofty religious philosophy would not bear contact with the despotic Empire, because
342
it would not bear any contact with the “world” (plan of the founding of Platonopolis).
Political affairs are at bottom as much a matter of indifference to Neoplatonism as material
things in general. The idealism of the new philosophy was too high to admit of its being
naturalised in the despiritualised, tyrannical and barren creation of the Byzantine Empire,
and this Empire itself needed unscrupulous and despotic police officials, not noble philo-
sophers. Important and instructive, therefore, as the experiments are, which were made
from time to time by the state and by individual philosophers, to unite the monarchy of the
world with Neoplatonism, they could not but be ineffectual.
But, and this is the last question which one is justified in raising here, why did not
Neoplatonism create an independent religious community? Since it had already changed
the ancient religions so fundamentally, in its purpose to restore them; since it had attempted
to fill the old naive cults with profound philosophic ideas, and to make them exponents of
274
a high morality; why did it not take the further step and create a religious fellowship of its
own? Why did it not complete and confirm the union of gods by the founding of a church
which was destined to embrace the whole of humanity, and in which, beside the one ineffable
Godhead, the gods of all nations could have been worshipped? Why not? The answer to this
question is at the same time the reply to another, viz., Why did the christian church supplant
Neoplatonism? Neoplatonism lacked three elements to give it the significance of a new and
permanent religious system. Augustine in his confessions (Bk. VII. 18-21) has excellently
described these three elements. First and above all, it lacked a religious founder; secondly,
it was unable to give any answer to the question, how one could permanently maintain the
mood of blessedness and peace; thirdly, it lacked the means of winning those who could
not speculate. The “people” could not learn the philosophic exercises which it recommended
as the condition of attaining the enjoyment of the highest good; and the way by which even
the “people” can attain to the highest good was hidden from it. Hence these “wise and
prudent” remained a school. When Julian attempted to interest the common uncultured
343
man in the doctrines and worship of this school, his reward was mockery and scorn.
Not as philosophy and not as a new religion did Neoplatonism become a decisive factor
in history, but, if I may say so, as a frame of mind.145 The feeling that there is an eternal
highest good which lies beyond all outer experience and is not even the intelligible, this
feeling, with which was united the conviction of the entire worthlessness of everything
earthly, was produced and fostered by Neoplatonism. But it was unable to describe the
contents of that highest being and highest good, and therefore it was here compelled to give
itself entirely up to fancy and aesthetic feeling. Therefore it was forced to trace out “myster-
ious ways to that which is within,” which, however, led no-where. It transformed thought
into a dream of feeling; it immersed itself in the sea of emotions; it viewed the old fabled
world of the nations as the reflection of a higher reality, and transformed reality into poetry;
145 Excellent remarks on the nature of Neoplatonism may be found in Eucken, Gött. Gel. Anz., 1 März, 1884.
p. 176 ff.: this sketch was already written before I saw them. “We find the characteristic of the Neoplatonic epoch
in the effort to make the inward, which till then had had alongside of it an independent outer world as a contrast,
the exclusive and all-determining element. The movement which makes itself felt here, outlasts antiquity and
prepares the way for the modern period; it brings about the dissolution of that which marked the culminating
point of ancient life, that which we are wont to call specifically classic. The life of the spirit, till then conceived
as a member of an ordered world and subject to its laws, now freely passes beyond these bounds, and attempts
to mould, and even to create, the universe from itself. No doubt the different attempts to realise this desire reveal,
for the most part, a deep gulf between will and deed; usually ethical and religious requirements of the naive
human consciousness must replace universally creative spiritual power, but all the insufficient and unsatisfactory
elements of this period should not obscure the fact that, in one instance, it reached the height of a great philo-
sophic achievement, in the case of Plotinus.”
275
but in spite of all these efforts it was only able, to use the words of Augustine, to see from
afar the land which it desired. It broke this world into fragments; but nothing remained to
it, save a ray from a world beyond, which was only an indescribable “something.”
And yet the significance of Neoplatonism in the history of our moral culture has been,
and still is, immeasurable. Not only because it refined and strengthened man’s life of feeling 344
and sensation, not only because it, more than anything else, wove the delicate veil which
even to-day, whether we be religious or irreligious, we ever and again cast over the offensive
impression of the brutal reality, but, above all, because it begat the consciousness that the
blessedness which alone can satisfy man is to be found somewhere else than in the sphere
of knowledge. That man does not live by bread alone is a truth that was known before
Neoplatonism; but it proclaimed the profounder truth, which the earlier philosophy had
failed to recognise, that man does not live by knowledge alone. Neoplatonism not only had
a propadeutic significance in the past, but continues to be, even now, the source of all the
moods which deny the world and strive after an ideal, but have not power to raise themselves
above esthetic feeling, and see no means of getting a clear notion of the impulse of their
own heart and the land of their desire.
Historical Origin of Neoplatonism.
The forerunners of Neoplatonism were, on the one hand, those Stoics who recognise
the Platonic distinction of the sensible and supersensible world, and on the other, the so-
called Neopythagoreans and religious philosophers, such as Posidonius, Plutarch of
Chæronea, and especially Numenius of Apamea.146 Nevertheless, these cannot be regarded
as the actual Fathers of Neoplatonism; for the philosophic method was still very imperfect
in comparison with the Neoplatonic, their principles were uncertain, and the authority of
Plato was not yet regarded as placed on an unapproachable height. The Jewish and Christian
philosophers of the first and second centuries stand very much nearer the later Neoplatonism
than Numenius. We would probably see this more clearly if we knew the development of
Christianity in Alexandria in the second century, But, unfortunately, we have only very
meagre fragments to tell us of this. First and above all, we must mention Philo. This philo-
sopher who interpreted the Old Testament religion in terms of Hellenism had, in accordance
345
with his idea of revelation, already maintained that the Divine Original Essence is supra-
rational, that only ecstasy leads to Him, and that the materials for religious and moral
knowledge are contained in the oracles of the Deity. The religious ethic of Philo, a combin-
ation of Stoic, Platonic, Neopythagorean and Old Testament gnomic wisdom, already bears
the marks which we recognise in Neoplatonism. The acknowledgment that God was exalted
above all thought was a sort of tribute which Greek philosophy was compelled to pay to the
146 Plotinus, even in his lifetime, was reproached with having borrowed most of his system from Numenius.
Porphyry, in his “Vita Plotini,” defended him against this reproach.
276
national religion of Israel, in return for the supremacy which was here granted to the former.
The claim of positive religion to be something more than an intellectual conception of the
universal reason was thereby justified. Even religious syncretism is already found in Philo;
but it is something essentially different from the later Neoplatonic, since Philo regarded the
Jewish cult as the only valuable one, and traced back all elements of truth in the Greeks and
Romans to borrowings from the books of Moses.
The earliest Christian philosophers, especially Justin and Athenagoras, likewise prepared
the way for the speculations of the later Neoplatonists by their attempts, on the one hand,
to connect Christianity with Stoicism and Platonism, and on the other, to exhibit it as supra-
Platonic. The method by which Justin, in the introduction to the Dialogue with Trypho,
attempts to establish the Christian knowledge of God, that is the knowledge of the truth,
on Platonism, Scepticism and “Revelation,” strikingly reminds us of the later methods of
the Neoplatonists. Still more is one reminded of Neoplatonism by the speculations of the
Alexandrian Christian Gnostics, especially of Valentinus and the followers of Basilides. The
doctrines of the Basilidians(?) communicated by Hippolytus (Philosoph. VII. c. 20 sq.), read
like fragments from the didactic writings of the Neoplatonists: Ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν ἦν οὐκ ὕλήm
οὐκ οὐσία, οὐκ ἀούσιον, οὐκ ἀπλοῦν, οὐκ σύνθετον, οὐκ ἀνόητον, οὐκ ἀναίσθητον, οὐκ
ἄνθρωπος . . . . . . οὐκ ὣν θεὸς ἀνοήτως, ἀναισθήτως ἀβούλως ἀπροαιρέτως, ἀπαθῶς,
ἀνεπιθυμήτιος κόσμον ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι . . . . . . Οὕτως οὐκ ὣν θεὸς ἀποὶησε κόσμον οὐκ
ὄντα ἐξ οὐκ ὅντων, καταβαλόμενος καὶ ὑποστήσας σπερμα τι ἓν ἔχον πᾶσαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῆς
τοῦ κόσμου πανστερμίαν. Like the Neoplatonists, these Basilidians did not teach an eman-
346
ation from the Godhead, but a dynamic mode of action of the Supreme Being. The same
can be asserted of Valentinus who also places an unnamable being above all, and views
matter not as a second principle, but as a derived product. The dependence of Basilides and
Valentinus on Zeno and Plato is, besides, un-doubted. But the method of these Gnostics in
constructing their mental picture of the world and its history was still an uncertain one.
Crude primitive myths are here received, and naively realistic elements alternate with bold
attempts at spiritualising. While therefore, philosophically considered, the Gnostic systems
are very unlike the finished Neoplatonic ones, it is certain that they contained almost all the
elements of the religious view of the world which we find in Neoplatonism.
But were the earliest Neoplatonists really acquainted with the speculations of men like
Philo, Justin, Valentinus and Basilides? Were they familiar with the Oriental religions, espe-
cially with the Jewish and the Christian? And, if we must answer these questions in the af-
firmative, did they really learn from these sources?
Unfortunately, we cannot at present give certain, and still less detailed, answers to these
questions. But, as Neoplatonism originated in Alexandria, as Oriental cults confronted every
one there, as the Jewish philosophy was prominent in the literary market of Alexandria, and
that was the very place where scientific Christianity had its headquarters, there can, generally
277
speaking, be no doubt that the earliest Neoplatonists had some acquaintance with Judaism
and Christianity. In addition to that, we have the certain fact that the earliest Neoplatonists
had discussions with (Roman) Gnostics (see Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer
Sprache, pp. 603-665, and that Porphyry entered into elaborate controversy with Christianity.
In comparison with the Neoplatonic philosophy, the system of Philo and the Gnostics appears
in many respects an anticipation which had a certain influence on the former, the precise
nature of which has still to be ascertained. But the anticipation is not wonderful, for the re-
ligious and philosophic temper which was only gradually produced on Greek soil, existed
from the first in such philosophers as took their stand on the ground of a revealed religion
347
of redemption. Iamblichus and his followers first answer completely to the Christian Gnostic
schools of the second century; that is to say, Greek philosophy, in its immanent development,
did not attain till the fourth century the position which some Greek philosophers who had
accepted Christianity, had already reached in the second. The influence of Christianity—both
Gnostic and Catholic—on Neoplatonism was perhaps very little at any time, though indi-
vidual Neoplatonists since the time of Amelius employed Christian sayings as oracles, and
testified their high esteem for Christ.
Sketch of the History and Doctrines of Neoplatonism.
Ammonius Saccas (died about 245), who is said to have been born a Christian, but to
have lapsed into heathenism, is regarded as the founder of the Neoplatonic school in Alex-
andria. As he has left no writings, no judgment can be formed as to his teaching. His disciples
inherited from him the prominence which they gave to Plato and the attempts to prove the
harmony between the latter and Aristotle. His most important disciples were Origen the
Christian, a second heathen Origen, Longinus, Herennius, and, above all, Plotinus. The
latter was born in the year 205, at Lycopolis in Egypt, laboured from 224 in Rome, and found
numerous adherents and admirers, among others the Emperor Galienus and his consort,
and died in lower Italy about 270. His writings were arranged by his disciple Porphyry, and
edited in six Enneads.
The Enneads of Plotinus are the fundamental documents of Neoplatonism. The teaching
of this philosopher is mystical, and, like all mysticism, it falls into two main portions. The
first and theoretic part shews the high origin of the soul, and how it has departed from this
its origin. The second and practical part points out the way by which the soul can again be
raised to the Eternal and the Highest. As the soul with its longings aspires beyond all sensible
things and even beyond the world of ideas, the Highest must be something above reason.
The system therefore has three parts. I. The Original Essence. II. The world of ideas and the
348
soul. III. The world of phenomena. We may also, in conformity with the thought of Plotinus,
divide the system thus: A. The supersensible world (1. The Original Essence; 2. the world
of ideas; 3. the soul). B. The world of phenomena. The Original Essence is the One in contrast
to the many; it. is the Infinite and Unlimited in contrast to the finite; it is the source of all
278
being, therefore the absolute causality and the only truly existing; but it is also the Good, in
so far as everything finite is to find its aim in it and to flow back to it. Yet moral attributes
cannot be ascribed to this Original Essence, for these would limit it. It has no attributes at
all: it is a being without magnitude, without life, without thought; nay, one should not,
properly speaking, even call it an existence; it is something above existence, above goodness,
and at the same time the operative force without any substratum. As operative force the
Original Essence is continually begetting something else, without itself being changed or
moved or diminished. This creation is not a physical process, but an emanation of force;
and because that which is produced has any existence only in so far as the originally Existent
works in it, it may be said that Neoplatonism is dynamical Pantheism. Everything that has
being is directly or indirectly a production of the “One.” In this “One” everything so far as
it has being, is Divine, and God is all in all. But that which is derived is not like the Original
Essence itself. On the contrary, the law of decreasing perfection prevails in the derived. The
latter is indeed an image and reflection of the Original Essence, but the wider the circle of
creations extends the less their share in the Original Essence. Hence the totality of being
forms a gradation of concentric circles which finally lose themselves almost completely in
non-being, in so far as in the last circle the force of the Original Essence is a vanishing one.
Each lower stage of being is connected with the Original Essence only by means of the
higher stages; that which is inferior receives a share in the Original Essence only through
the medium of these. But everything derived has one feature, viz., a longing for the higher;
it turns itself to this so far as its nature allows it.
349
The first emanation of the Original Essence is the Νοῦς it is a complete image of the
Original Essence and archetype of all existing things; it is being and thought at the same
time, World of ideas and Idea. As image the Nov; is equal to the Original Essence, as derived
it is completely different from it. What Plotinus understands by Νοῦς is the highest sphere
which the human spirit can reach (κόσμος νοητός) and at the same time pure thought itself.
The soul which, according to Plotinus, is an immaterial substance like the Νοῦς,147 is
an image and product of the immovable Νοῦς. It is related to the Νοῦς as the latter is to the
Original Essence. It stands between the Νοῦς and the world of phenomena. The Νοῦς pen-
etrates and enlightens it, but it itself already touches the world of phenomena. The Νοῦς is
undivided, the soul can also preserve its unity and abide in the Νοῦς; but it has at the same
time the power to unite itself with the material world and thereby to be divided. Hence it
occupies a middle position. In virtue of its nature and destiny it belongs, as the single soul
(soul of the world), to the supersensible world; but it embraces at the same time the many
individual souls; these may allow themselves to be ruled by the Νοῦς, or they may turn to
the sensible and be lost in the finite.
147 On this sort of Trinity, see Bigg, “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” p. 248 f.
279
The soul, an active essence, begets the corporeal or the world of phenomena. This should
allow itself to be so ruled by the soul that the manifold of which it consists may abide in
fullest harmony. Plotinus is not a dualist like the majority of Christian Gnostics. He praises
the beauty and glory of the world. When in it the idea really has dominion over matter, the
soul over the body, the world is beautiful and good. It is the image of the upper world, though
a shadowy one, and the gradations of better or worse in it are necessary to the harmony of
the whole. But, in point of fact, the unity and harmony in the world of phenomena disappear
in strife and opposition. The result is a conflict, a growth and decay, a seeming existence.
The original cause of this lies in the fact that a substratum, viz., matter, lies at the basis of
350
bodies. Matter is the foundation of each (τὸ βάθος ἑκάστου ἡ ὕλη); it is the obscure, the
indefinite, that which is without qualities, the μὴ ὄν. As devoid of form and idea it is the
evil, as capable of form the intermediate.
The human souls that are sunk in the material have been ensnared by the sensuous, and
have allowed themselves to be ruled by desire. They now seek to detach themselves entirely
from true being, and striving after independence fall into an unreal existence. Conversion
therefore is needed, and this is possible, for freedom is not lost.
Now here begins the practical philosophy. The soul must rise again to the highest on
the same path by which it descended: it must first of all return to itself. This takes place
through virtue, which aspires to assimilation with God and leads to Him. In the ethics of
Plotinus all earlier philosophic systems of virtue are united and arranged in graduated order.
Civic virtues stand lowest, then follow the purifying, and finally the deifying virtues. Civic
virtues only adorn the life, but do not elevate the soul as the purifying virtues do; they free
the soul from the sensuous and lead it back to itself and thereby to the Νοῦς. Man becomes
again a spiritual and permanent being, and frees himself from every sin, through asceticism.
But he is to reach still higher; he is not only to be without sin, but he is to be “God.” That
takes place through the contemplation of the Original Essence, the One, that is through ec-
static elevation to Him. This is not mediated by thought, for thought reaches only to the
Νοῦς, and is itself only a movement. Thought is only a preliminary stage towards union
with God. The soul can only see and touch the Original Essence in a condition of complete
passivity and rest. Hence, in order to attain to this highest, the soul must subject itself to a
spiritual “Exercise.” It must begin with the contemplation of material things, their diversity
and harmony, then retire into itself and sink itself in its own essence, and thence mount up
to the Νοῦς, to the world of ideas; but, as it still does not find the One and Highest Essence
there, as the call always comes to it from there: “We have not made ourselves” (Augustine
351
in the sublime description of Christian, that is Neoplatonic, exercises), it must, at it were,
lose sight of itself in a state of intense concentration, in mute contemplation and complete
forgetfulness of all things. It can then see God, the source of life, the principle of being, the
first cause of all good, the root of the soul. In that moment it enjoys the highest and indes-
280
cribable blessedness; it is itself, as it were, swallowed up by the deity and bathed in the light
of eternity.
Plotinus, as Porphyry relates, attained to this ecstatic union with God four times during
the six years he was with him. To Plotinus this religious philosophy was sufficient; he did
not require the popular religion and worship. But yet he sought their support. The Deity is
indeed in the last resort only the Original Essence, but it manifests itself in a fulness of em-
anations and phenomena. The Νοῦς is, as it were, the second God; the λόγοι which are in-
cluded in it are gods; the stars are gods etc. A strict monotheism appeared to Plotinus a poor
thing. The myths of the popular religion were interpreted by him in a particular sense, and
he could justify even magic, soothsaying and prayer. He brought forward reasons for the
worship of images, which the Christian worshippers of images subsequently adopted. Yet,
in comparison with the later Neoplatonists, he was free from gross superstition and wild
fanaticism. He cannot, in the remotest sense, be reckoned among the “deceivers who were
themselves deceived,” and the restoration of the ancient worship of the Gods was not his
chief aim.
Among his disciples the most important were Amelius and Porphyry. Amelius changed
the doctrine of Plotinus in some points, and even made use of the prologue of the Gospel
of John. Porphyry has the merit of having systematized and spread the teaching of his
master, Plotinus. He was born at Tyre, in the year 233; whether he was for some time a
Christian is uncertain; from 263-268 he was a pupil of Plotinus at Rome; before that he
wrote the work περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, which shews that he wished to base philo-
sophy on revelation; he lived a few years in Sicily, (about 270) where he wrote his “fifteen
books against the Christians”; he then returned to Rome, where he laboured as a teacher,
edited the works of Plotinus, wrote himself a series of treatises, married in his old age, the
352
Roman Lady Marcella, and died about the year 303. Porphyry was not an original, productive
thinker, but a diligent and thorough investigator, characterized by great learning, by the
gift of an acute faculty for philological and historical criticism, and by an earnest desire to
spread the true philosophy of life, to refute false doctrines, especially those of the Christians,
to ennoble man and draw him to that which is good. That a mind so free and noble sur-
rendered itself entirely to the philosophy of Plotinus and to polytheistic mysticism, is a proof
that the spirit of the age works almost irresistibly, and that religious mysticism was the
highest possession of the time. The teaching of Porphyry is distinguished from that of
Plotinus by the fact that it is still more practical and religious. The aim of philosophy, ac-
cording to Porphyry, is the salvation of the soul. The origin and the guilt of evil lie not in
the body, but in the desires of the soul. The strictest asceticism (abstinence from cohabitation,
flesh and wine) is therefore required in addition to the knowledge of God. During the course
of his life Porphyry warned men more and more decidedly against crude popular beliefs
and immoral cults. “The ordinary notions of the Deity are of such a kind that it is more
281
godless to share them than to neglect the images of the gods.” But freely as he criticised the
popular religions, he did not wish to give them up. He contended for a pure worship of the
many gods, and recognised the right of every old national religion, and the religious duties
of their professors. His work against the Christians is not directed against Christ, or what
he regarded as the teaching of Christ, but against the Christians of his day, and against the
sacred books which, according to Porphyry, were written by impostors and ignorant people.
In his acute criticism of the genesis or what was regarded as Christianity in his day, he spoke
bitter and earnest truths, and therefore acquired the name of the fiercest and most formidable
of all the enemies of Christians. His work was destroyed (condemned by an edict of
Theodosius II. and Valentinian, of the year 448), and even the writings in reply (by Metho-
dius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Philostorgius, etc.,) have not been preserved. Yet we possess
353
fragments in Lactantius, Augustine, Macarius Magnes and others, which attest how thor-
oughly Porphyry studied the Christian writings and how great his faculty was for true his-
torical criticism.
Porphyry marks the transition to the Neoplatonism which subordinated itself entirely
to the polytheistic cults, and which strove, above all, to defend the old Greek and Oriental
religions against the formidable assaults of Christianity. Iamblichus, the disciple of Porphyry
(died 330), transformed Neoplatonism “from a philosophic theorem into a theological
doctrine.” The doctrines peculiar to Iamblichus can no longer be deduced from scientific,
but only from practical motives. In order to justify superstition and the ancient cults,
philosophy in Iamblichus becomes a theurgic mysteriosophy, spiritualism. Now appears
that series of “Philosophers” in whose case one is frequently unable to decide whether they
are deceivers or deceived, “decepti deceptores,” as Augustine says. A mysterious mysticism
of numbers plays a great role. That which is absurd and mechanical is surrounded with the
halo of the sacramental; myths are proved by pious fancies and pietistic considerations with
a spiritual sound; miracles, even the most foolish, are believed in and are performed. The
philosopher becomes the priest of magic, and philosophy an instrument of magic. At the
same time the number of Divine Beings is infinitely increased by the further action of un-
limited speculation. But this fantastic addition which Iamblichus makes to the inhabitants
of Olympus is the very fact which proves that Greek philosophy has here returned to
mythology, and that the religion of nature was still a power. And yet no one can deny that,
in the fourth century, even the noblest and choicest minds were found among the Neopla-
tonists. So great was the declension that this Neoplatonic philosophy was still the protecting
roof for many influential and earnest thinkers, although swindlers and hypocrites also
concealed themselves under this roof. In relation to some points of doctrine, at any rate,
the dogmatic of Iamblichus marks an advance. Thus, the emphasis he lays on the idea that
evil has its seat in the will, is an important fact; and in general the significance he assigns to
the will is perhaps the most important advance in psychology, and one which could not fail
354
282
to have great influence on dogmatic also (Augustine). It likewise deserves to be noted that
Iamblichus disputed Plotinus’ doctrine of the divinity of the human soul.
The numerous disciples of Iamblichus (Aedesius, Chrysantius, Eusebius, Priscus,
Sopater, Sallust and especially Maximus, the most celebrated) did little to further speculation;
they occupied themselves partly with commenting on the writings of the earlier philosophers
(particularly Themistius), partly as missionaries of their mysticism. The interests and aims
of these philosophers are best shewn in the treatise “De mysteriis Ægyptiorum.” Their hopes
were strengthened when their disciple Julian, a man enthusiastic and noble, but lacking in
intellectual originality, ascended the imperial throne, 361 to 363. This emperor’s romantic
policy of restoration, as he himself must have seen, had, however, no result, and his early
death destroyed every hope of supplanting Christianity.
But the victory of the Church in the age of Valentinian and Theodosius, unquestionably
purified Neoplatonism. The struggle for dominion had led philosophers to grasp at and
unite themselves with everything that was hostile to Christianity. But now Neoplatonism
was driven out of the great arena of history. The Church and its dogmatic, which inherited
its estate, received along with the latter superstition, polytheism, magic, myths and the ap-
paratus of religious magic. The more firmly all this established itself in the Church and
succeeded there, though not without finding resistance, the freer Neoplatonism becomes.
It does not by any means give up its religious attitude or its theory of knowledge, but it applies
itself with fresh zeal to scientific investigations and especially to the study of the earlier
philosophers. Though Plato remains the divine philosopher, yet it may be noticed how,
from about 400, the writings of Aristotle were increasingly read and prized. Neoplatonic
schools continue to flourish in the chief cities of the empire up to the beginning of the fifth
century, and in this period they are at the same time the places where the theologians of the
Church are formed. The noble Hypatia, to whom Synesius, her enthusiastic disciple, who
was afterwards a bishop, raised a splendid monument, taught in Alexandria. But from the
355
beginning of the fifth century ecclesiastical fanaticism ceased to tolerate heathenism. The
murder of Hypatia put an end to philosophy in Alexandria, though the Alexandrian school
maintained itself in a feeble form till the middle of the sixth century. But in one city of the
East, removed from the great highways of the world, which had become a provincial city
and possessed memories which the Church of the fifth century felt itself too weak to destroy,
viz., in Athens, a Neoplatonic school continued to flourish. There, among the monuments
of a past time, Hellenism found its last asylum. The school of Athens returned to a more
strict philosophic method and to learned studies. But as it clung to religious philosophy and
undertook to reduce the whole Greek tradition, viewed in the light of Plotinus’ theory, to a
comprehensive and strictly articulated system, a philosophy arose here which may be called
scholastic. For every philosophy is scholastic which considers fantastic and mythological
material as a noli me tangere, and treats it in logical categories and distinctions by means
283
of a complete set of formulæ. But to these Neoplatonists the writings of Plato, certain divine
oracles, the Orphic poems, and much else which were dated back to the dim and distant
past, were documents of standard authority and inspired divine writings. They took from
them the material of philosophy, which they then treated with all the instruments of dialectic.
The most prominent teachers at Athens were Plutarch (died 433), his disciple Syrian
(who, as an exegete of Plato and Aristotle, is said to have done important work, and who
deserves notice also because he very vigorously emphasised the freedom of the will), but,
above all, Proclus (411-485). Proclus is the great scholastic of Neoplatonism. It was he “who
fashioned the whole traditional material into a powerful system with religious warmth and
formal clearness, filling up the gaps and reconciling the contradictions by distinctions and
speculations.” “Proclus,” says Zeller, “was the first who, by the strict logic of his system,
formally completed the Neoplatonic philosophy and gave it, with due regard to all the
changes it had undergone since the second century, that form in which it passed over to the
356
Christian and Mohammedan middle ages. Forty-four years after the death of Proclus the
school of Athens was closed by Justinian (in the year 529); but in the labours of Proclus it
had completed its work, and could now really retire from the scene. It had nothing new to
say; it was ripe for death, and an honourable end was prepared for it. The words of Proclus,
the legacy of Hellenism to the Church and to the middle ages, attained an immeasurable
importance in the thousand years which followed. They were not only one of the bridges
by which the philosophy of the middle ages returned to Plato and Aristotle, but they determ-
ined the scientific method of the next thirty generations, and they partly produced, partly
strengthened and brought to maturity the medieval Christian mysticism in East and West.
The disciples of Proclus—Marinus, Asclepiodotus, Ammonius, Zenodotus, Isidorus,
Hegias, Damascius—are not regarded as prominent. Damascius was the last head of the
school at Athens. He, Simplicius, the masterly commentator on Aristotle, and five other
Neoplatonists migrated to Persia after Justinian had issued the edict closing the school. They
lived in the illusion that Persia, the land of the East, was the seat of wisdom, righteousness
and piety. After a few years they returned with blasted hopes to the Byzantine kingdom.
At the beginning of the sixth century Neoplatonism died out as an independent philo-
sophy in the East; but almost at the same time, and this is no accident, it conquered new
regions in the dogmatic of the Church through the spread of the writings of the pseudo-
Dionysius; it began to fertilize Christian mysticism, and filled the worship with a new charm.
In the West, where, from the second century, we meet with few attempts at philosophic
speculation, and where the necessary conditions for mystical contemplation were wanting,
Neoplatonism only gained a few adherents here and there. We know that the rhetorician,
Marius Victorinus, (about 350) translated the writings of Plotinus. This translation exercised
decisive influence on the mental history of Augustine, who borrowed from Neoplatonism
357
the best it had, its psychology, introduced it into the dogmatic of the Church, and developed
284
it still further. It may be said that Neoplatonism influenced the West at first only through
the medium or under the cloak of ecclesiastical theology. Even Boethius—we can now regard
this as certain—was a Catholic Christian. But in his mode of thought he was certainly a
Neoplatonist. His violent death in the year 525, marks the end of independent philosophic
effort in the West. This last Roman philosopher stood indeed almost completely alone in
his century, and the philosophy for which he lived was neither original nor firmly grounded
and methodically carried out.
Neoplatonism and Ecclesiastical Dogmatic.
The question as to the influence which Neoplatonism had on the history of the develop-
ment of Christianity is not easy to answer; it is hardly possible to get a clear view of the re-
lation between them. Above all, the answers will diverge according as we take a wider or a
narrower view of so-called “Neoplatonism.” If we view Neoplatonism as the highest and
only appropriate expression for the religious hopes and moods which moved the nations
of Græco-Roman Empire from the second to the fifth centuries, the ecclesiastical dogmatic
which was developed in the same period may appear as a younger sister of Neoplatonism
which was fostered by the elder one, but which fought and finally conquered her. The
Neoplatonists themselves described the ecclesiastical theologians as intruders who appropri-
ated Greek philosophy, but mixed it with foreign fables. Hence Porphyry said of Origen (in
Euseb., H. E. VI. 19): “The outer life of Origen was that of a Christian and opposed to the
law; but, in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inas-
much as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.” This judgment of Por-
phyry is at any rate more just and appropriate than that of the Church theologians about
Greek philosophy, that it had stolen all its really valuable doctrines from the ancient sacred
writings of the Christians. It is, above all, important that the affinity of the two sides was
358
noted. So far, then, as both ecclesiastical dogmatic and Neoplatonism start from the feeling
of the need of redemption, so far as both desire to free the soul from the sensuous, so far as
they recognise the inability of man to attain to blessedness and a certain knowledge of the
truth without divine help and without a revelation, they are fundamentally related. It must
no doubt be admitted that Christianity itself was already profoundly affected by the influence
of Hellenism when it began to outline a theology; but this influence must be traced back
less to philosophy than to the collective culture and to all the conditions under which the
spiritual life was enacted. When Neoplatonism arose ecclesiastical Christianity already
possessed the fundamental features of its theology, that is, it had developed these, not by
accident, contemporaneously and independent of Neoplatonism. Only by identifying itself
with the whole history of Greek philosophy, or claiming to be the restoration of pure Pla-
tonism, was Neoplatonism able to maintain that it had been robbed by the church theology
of Alexandria. But that was an illusion. Ecclesiastical theology appears, though our sources
here are unfortunately very meagre, to have learned but little from Neoplatonism even in
285
the third century, partly because the latter itself had not yet developed into the form in which
the dogmatic of the church could assume its doctrines, partly because ecclesiastical theology
had first to succeed in its own region, to fight for its own position and to conquer older
notions intolerable to it. Origen was quite as independent a thinker as Plotinus; but both
drew from the same tradition. On the other hand, the influence of Neoplatonism on the
Oriental theologians was very great from the fourth century. The more the Church expressed
its peculiar ideas in doctrines which, though worked out by means of philosophy, were yet
unacceptable to Neoplatonism (the christological doctrines), the more readily did theologians
in all other questions resign themselves to the influence of the latter system. The doctrines
of the incarnation, of the resurrection of the body, and of the creation of the word, in time
formed the boundary lines between the dogmatic of the Church and Neoplatonism; in all
else ecclesiastical theologians and Neoplatonists approximated so closely that many among
359
them were completely at one. Nay, there were Christian men, such as Synesius, for example,
who in certain circumstances were not found fault with for giving a speculative interpretation
of the specifically Christian doctrines. If in any writing the doctrines just named are not
referred to, it is often doubtful whether it was composed by a Christian or a Neoplatonist.
Above all, the ethical rules, the precepts of the right life, that is asceticism, were always
similar. Here Neoplatonism in the end celebrated its greatest triumph. It introduced into
the Church its entire mysticism, its mystic exercises, and even the magical ceremonies as
expounded by Iamblichus. The writings of the pseudo-Dionysius contain a Gnosis in which,
by means of the doctrines of lamblichus and doctrines like those of Proclus, the dogmatic
of the Church is changed into a scholastic mysticism with directions for practical life and
worship. As the writings of this pseudo-Dionysius were regarded as those of Dionysius the
disciple of the Apostle, the scholastic mysticism which they taught was regarded as
apostolic, almost as a divine science. The importance which these writings obtained first in
the East, then from the ninth or the twelfth century also in the West, cannot be too highly
estimated. It is impossible to explain them here. This much only may be said, that the mys-
tical and pietistic devotion of to-day, even in the Protestant Church, draws its nourishment
from writings whose connection with those of the pseudo-Areopagitic can still be traced
through its various intermediate stages.
In antiquity itself Neoplatonism influenced with special directness one Western theolo-
gian, and that the most important, viz., Augustine. By the aid of this system Augustine was
freed from Manichaeism, though not completely, as well as from scepticism. In the seventh
Book of his confessions he has acknowledged his indebtedness to the reading of Neoplatonic
writings. In the most essential doctrines, viz., those about God, matter, the relation of God
to the world, freedom and evil, Augustine always remained dependent on Neoplatonism;
but, at the same time, of all theologians in antiquity he is the one who saw most clearly and
shewed most plainly wherein Christianity and Neoplatonism are distinguished. The best
360
286
that has been written by a Father of the Church on this subject, is contained in Chapters 9-
21 of the seventh Book of his confessions.
The question why Neoplatonism was defeated in the conflict with Christianity, has not
as yet been satisfactorily answered by historians. Usually the question is wrongly stated. The
point here is not about a Christianity arbitrarily fashioned, but only about Catholic Chris-
tianity and Catholic theology. This conquered Neoplatonism after it had assimilated nearly
everything it possessed. Further, we must note the place where the victory was gained. The
battle-field was the empire of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian. Only when we have
considered these and all other conditions are we entitled to enquire in what degree the
specific doctrines of Christianity contributed to the victory, and what share the organisation
of the Church had in it. Undoubtedly, however, we must always give the chief prominence
to the fact that the Catholic dogmatic excluded polytheism in principle, and at the same
time found a means by which it could represent the faith of the cultured mediated by science
as identical with the faith of the multitude resting on authority.
In the theology and philosophy of the middle ages mysticism was the strong opponent
of rationalistic dogmatism; and, in fact, Platonism and Neoplatonism were the sources from
which, in the age of the Renaissance and in the following two centuries, empiric science
developed itself in opposition to the rationalistic dogmatism which disregarded experience.
Magic, astrology, alchemy, all of which were closely connected with Neoplatonism, gave an
effective impulse to the observation of nature and consequently to natural science, and finally
prevailed over formal and barren rationalism. Consequently, in the history of science,
Neoplatonism has attained a significance and performed services of which men like Iamb-
lichus and Proclus never ventured to dream. In point of fact, actual history is often more
wonderful and capricious than legends and fables.
Literature.—The best and fullest account of Neoplatonism, to which I have been much
indebted in preparing this sketch, is Zeller’s Die Philosophie der Griechen, III. Theil, 2 Ab- 361
theilung (3 Auflage, 1881) pp. 419-865. Cf. also Hegel, Gesch. d. Philos. III. 3 ff. Ritter, IV.
pp. 571-728: Ritter et Preller, Hist. phil. græc. et rom. § 531 ff. The Histories of Philosophy
by Schwegler, Brandis, Brucker, Thilo, Strümpell, Ueberweg (the most complete survey of
the literature is found here), Erdmann, Cousin, Prantl. Lewes. Further: Vacherot, Hist. de
l’école d’Alexandria, 1846, 1851. Simon, Hist. de l’école d’Alexandria, 1845. Steinhart, articles
“Neuplatonismus,” “Plotin,” “Porphyrius,” “Proklus “ in Pauly, Realencyclop. des klass.
Alterthums. Wagenmann, article “Neuplatonismus” in Herzog, Realencyklopädie f. protest.
Theol. T. X. (2 Aufl.) pp. 519-529. Heinze, Lehre vom Logos, 1872, p. 298 f. Richter, Neupla-
tonische Studien, 4 Hefte.
Heigl, Der Bericht des Porphyrios über Origenes, 1835. Redepenning, Origenes I. p.
421 f. Dehaut, Essai historique sur la vie et la doctrine d’Ammonius Saccas, 1836. Kirchner,
Die Philosophie des Plotin, 1854. (For the biography of Plotinus, cf. Porphyry, Eunapius,
287
Suidas; the latter also in particular for the later Neoplatonists.) Steinhart, De dialectica
Plotini ratione, 1829, and Meletemata Plotiniana, 1840. Neander, Ueber die welthistorische
Bedeutung des 9ten Buchs in der 2ten Enneade des Plotinos, in the Adhandl. der Berliner
Akademie, 1843. p. 299 f. Valentiner, Plotin u. s. Enneaden, in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken,
1864, H. 1. On Porphyrius, see Fabricius, Bibl. gr. V. p. 725 f. Wolff, Porph. de philosophia
ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiæ, 1856. Müller, Fragmenta hist. gr. III. 688 f. Mai,
Ep. ad Marcellam, 1816. Bernays, Theophrast. 1866. Wagenmann, Jahrbücher für Deutsche
Theol. Th. XXIII. (1878) p. 269 f. Richter, Zeitschr. f. Philos. Th. LII. (1867) p. 30 f. Heben-
streit, de Iamblichi doctrina, 1764. Harless, Das Buch von den ägyptischen Mysterien, 1858.
Meiners, Comment. Societ. Götting. IV. p. 50 f. On Julian, see the catalogue of the rich lit-
erature in the Realencyklop. f. prot. Theol. Th. VII. (2 Aufl.) p. 287; and Neumann, Juliani
libr. c. Christ. quæ supersunt, 1880. Hoche, Hypatia, in “Philologus,” Th. XV. (1860) p. 435
f. Bach, De Syriano philosopho, 1862. On Proclus, see the Biography of Marinus and
Freudenthal in “Hermes” Th. XVI. p. 214 f. On Boethius, cf. Nitzsch, Das System des
362
Boëthius, 1860. Usener, Anecdoton Holderi, 1877.
On the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity and its significance in the history of
the world, cf. the Church Histories of Mosheim, Gieseler, Neander, Baur; also the Histories
of Dogma by Baur and Nitzsch. Also Löffler, Der Platonismus, der Kirchenväter, 1782.
Huber, Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter, 1859. Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, 1829.
Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantin’s des Grossen, p. 155 f. Chastel, Hist. de la destruction du
Paganisme dans l’empire d’Orient, 1850. Beugnot, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme en
Occident. 1835. E. v. Lasaulx, Der Untergang des Hellenismus, 1854. Bigg, The Christian
Platonists of Alexandria, 1886. Réville, La réligion à Rome sous les Sévères, 1886. Vogt,
Neuplatonismus und Christenthum, 1836. Ullmann, Einfluss des Christenthums auf Por-
phyrius, in Stud. und Krit., 1832.
On the relation of Neoplatonism to Monasticism, cf. Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum,
1178, p. 204 f. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache, 1892 (Texte u.
Unters., VIII. 1. 2). See, further, the Monographs on Origen, the later Alexandrians, the
three Cappadocians, Theodoret, Synesius, Marius Victorinus, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius,
Maximus, Scotus Erigena and the Mediæval Mystics. Special prominence is due to Jahn,
Basilius Plotinizans, 1838. Dorner, Augustinus, 1875. Bestmann, Qua ratione Augustinus
notiones philos. Græcæ adhibuerit, 1877. Loesche, Augustinus Plotinizans, 1881. Volkmann,
Synesios, 1869.
On the after effects of Neoplatonism on Christian Dogmatic, see Ritschl, Theologie und
Metaphysik. 2 Aufl. 1887.
288
Indexes
Indexes
289
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
1 1:1
Exodus
24:3 25:9 25:40 26:30 27:8
Numbers
8:4
1 Samuel
27:1-12
Job
1880
Psalms
2:2 45:8 51:19 96:1-13 110:1 110:4 139:15-16
Isaiah
7:1-25 7:14 7:14 9:1 29:13 53:1-12
Daniel
7:1-28 7:13
Micah
5:1
Malachi
1:11
Matthew
1:1-2:23 5:1-48 9:13 16:1-28 16:18 18:17 19:17 22:31 24:36 28:19 28:19
Mark
1:15 5:18-19 8:29 10:45 12:32-34 13:32
Luke
1:4 1:34-35 8:45 10:27-28 12:41-46 24:26 24:34 24:34 24:51
John
1:1-51 1:18 1:30 1:31 3:13 3:13 3:31 4:2 4:22 4:24 4:62 5:17 5:21 5:36 6:1-71
6:27-58 6:33 6:38 6:41 6:44 6:50 6:58 6:62 8:14 8:38 8:40 8:58 12:49 15:15
17:1-26 17:4 17:24 20:17 20:28 20:29 32:9 88
Acts
2:14 2:32 3:13 10:42 14:11 15:22 19:5 20:28 24:5 28:6 28:31
Romans
1:3 1:3 2:4 3:1-8:39 4 4 5:1-21 6 6:1-2 6:3 6:3 7 7:1-25 8:1-39 8:1-39 8:3
8:29 9:5 10:6 10:9 13:1
1 Corinthians
290
1:2 1:12 1:13 3:2 4:15 9:5 9:9 9:9 10:4 11:1 11:10 11:23 12:3 12:3 13:1-13
15:1-11 15:1-58 15:3 15:5 15:5 15:5 15:45
2 Corinthians
4:4 5:17 8:9 13:13
Galatians
1:15 1:15-16 1:18 1:22 2:1-21 2:1-21 2:8 2:11 3:16 3:19 4:22-31 4:26 5:22
Ephesians
1:1 1:1 1:4 1:20 1:22 2:6 3 3:5 4:9 7 7 7 7 7:2 9 9 10 14 14:2 17 18 19
20 20:1 20:2
Philippians
1:18 2:5 2:6 2:9
Colossians
1:15 1:18 269 291 409 415 1155
1 Timothy
2:5 3:16 3:16 3:16 6:20
2 Timothy
4:1
Titus
2:13 2:13
Hebrews
1:2 10:25 12:22 13:16
James
1:25 1:27
1 Peter
1:18 1:20 3:19
2 Peter
1:1 1:1 3:2
2 John
10:11
Revelation
1:5 2:3 2:9 2:9 3:9 3:9 3:14 21:2
4 Maccabees
5:24
291
Greek Words and Phrases
Index of Greek Words and Phrases
αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν καινὸν ἐτοιμάζων: 152

ἵνα ἐπιγνῶς περιὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν: 131
κύριος: 150
ὁ θεός: 154
τὰ βιβλία: 131
χρὴ δὲ καὶ πιστεύειν, ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ πασῃ τῇ τερὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν θεοτητα
καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· ἀληθείᾳ δεὶ δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἁγ́ ιον πιστεύειν πνεῦμα, καὶ ὁτ́ ι αὐτεξούσιοι
ὄντες κολαζόμεθα μὲν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἁμαρτάνομεν, τιμώμεθα δὲ ἐφ᾽ οἷς εὖ πραττομεν.: 127
. . . . οὐ, καθάπερ ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν ἃνθρωπος, ὑπηρέτην τινὰ πέμψας ἣ ἄγγελον ἣ ἄρχοντα
ἣ τινα τῶν διεπόντων τὰ ἐπίγεια ἣ τινα τῶν πεπιστευμένων τὰς ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοικήσεις,
ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων, κ.τ.λ.: 152
. . . . τῶν λόγων τοῦ κύριου Ἰησοῦ, οὓς ἐλάκησεν διδάσκων: 153
. . . τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου: 154
Ύπὲρ Καίσαρος Αὐτοκράττορος θεοῦ : 103
Ἀδελφοί, οὕτως δεῖ ἦμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ, ὡς περὶ θεοῦ, ὡς περὶ κριτοῦ ζώντων καὶ
νεκρῶν: 153
Ἀληθὴς Λόγος: 182
Ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἀθάνατοί ἐστε καὶ τέκνα ζωῆς ἐστε αἰωνίας, καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἡθέλετε μερίσασθαι
εἰς ἐαυτούς, ἵνα δαπανήσιτε αὐτὸν καὶ ἀναλώσητε, καὶ ἀποθάνή ὁ θάνατος ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ δι᾽
ὑμῶν, ὅταν γὰρ τὸν μὲν κόσμον λύητε, αὐτοι δὲ μὴ κατλύησθε, κυριεύετε τῆς κρίσεως καὶ
τῆς φθορᾶς ἀπάσης.: 198
Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: 51
Διατί οὖν πρεσβυτέρα : 90
Διδ: 131
Διδαχὴ: 136 136 146
Διδαχὴ κύριον διὰ τῶν ιβ᾽ ἀποστόλων: 131
Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων: 183
Διδαχή: 151
Δύο δὲ τινας συνιστῶσιν ἐκ θεοῦ τεταγμένους, ἕνα μὲν τὸν Χριστὸν, ἕνα δὲ τὸν διάβολον.
καὶ τὸν μὲν Χριστὸν λέγουσι τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἰληφέναι τὸν κλῆρον, τὸν δὲ διάβολον
τοῦτον πεπιστεῦσθαι ὀν αἰῶνα, ἐκ προσταγῆς δῆθεν τοῦ παντοκράτορος κατὰ αἴτησιν
ἑκατέρων αὑτῶν: 252
Δύο συνεστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων παρεχόμενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστόν καὶ βάπτισμα.: 171
Ἐάν μυρίους παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε ἐν χριστῷ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πολλους πατέρας: 115
Ἐγκράτεια: 101
292
Ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δωδεκα μαθηπὰς, κ.τ.λ.: 135

Ἐξηγητικά: 211
Ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν ἦν οὐκ ὑλ́ ήm οὐκ οὐσία, οὐκ ἀούσιον, οὐκ ἀπλοῦν, οὐκ σύνθετον, οὐκ ἀνόητον,
οὐκ ἀναίσθητον, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος . . . . . . οὐκ ὣν θεὸς ἀνοήτως, ἀναισθήτως ἀβούλως
ἀπροαιρέτως, ἀπαθῶς, ἀνεπιθυμήτιος : 277
Ἐπιφάνης, ὑιὸς Καρποκράτους, ἔζησε τὰ πάντα ἔτη ἑπτακαίδεκα καί θεὸς ἐν Σαμῃ τῆς
Κεφαλληνίας τετίμηται, ἔνθα αὐτῷ ἱερὸν ῥυτῶν λίθων, βωμοί, τεμένη, μουσεῖον,
ᾠκοδόμηταί τε καί καθιέρωται, καὶ συνιόντες εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν οἱ Καφαλλῆνες κατὰ νουμηνίαν
γενέθλιον ἀποθέωσιν θύουσιν Ἐπιφάνει, ππένδουσι τε καὶ εὐωχοῦνται καί ὑμ ́ νοι λέγονται.:
195
Ἑλλήνων τοφός τις: 254
Εἰς, ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος
θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητος καὶ τότε ἀπαθής
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν.: 159
Ἡμεῖς ἀναπτίξαντες τὰς βίβλους ἃς εἴχομεν τῶν προφητῶν, ἃ μὲν διὰ παραβολῶν ἃ δὲ διὰ
αἰνιγμάτων ἡ δὲ αὐθεντικῶ; καὶ αὐτολεξεί τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ὀνομαζόντων, εὓρμεν καὶ
τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θανατον καὶ τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὰς λοιπάς κολάσεις πάσας,
ὃσας ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν καὶ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν πρὸ τοῦ
Ἱερσόλυμα κριθῆναι, καθὼς ἐγέγραπτο ταῦτα πάντα ἃ ἔδει αὐτὸν παθεῖν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν
ἃ ἔσται· ταῠτα οὖν ἐπιγνόντες ἐπιστεύσαμεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τῶν γεγραμμένων εἰς αὐτὸν.: 144
Θεός: 154
Ἰ. Χρ. ὁ θεός ὁ οὕτως ὑμᾶς ποφίσας: 155
Ἰησοῦς: 152
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν: 264
Ἰησοῦς εἰς τοῦτο ἡτοιμασθη, ἵνα . . . . ἡμᾶς λυτρωσάμενος ἐκ τοῦ σκότους διάθηται ἐν ἡμῖν
διαθήκην λόγῳ.: 152
Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ ὀλίγῳ διαφέροντες αὐτῶν Ἐβιωναῖοι: 244
Καὶ σχεδὸν πάντες μὲν Σαμαρεις, ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν, ὡς τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν
Σίμωνα ὁμολογοῦντες, ἐκεῖνον καὶ προσκυνοῦσιν: 200
Κέρδων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐλθῶν καὶ ἐξομολογούμενος, οὕτως διετέλεσε, ποτὲ μὲν
λαθροδιδασκαλῶν ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἐξομολογούμενος, ποτὲ δὲ ἐλεγγόμενος ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐδίδασκε
κακῶς, καὶ ἀφιστάμενος τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνοδίας: 204
Μαθήσῃ ἑξῆς καὶ τὴν τούτου ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουμένη τῆς ἀποστολικῆς
παραδόσεως, ἣ ἐκ διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡμεῖς παρειλήφαμεν, μετὰ καιροῦ [sic] κανονίσαι πάντας
τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος διδασκαλίᾳ: 208
Μαρκίων σοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἐπικέκληνται οἱ ὑπο σοῦ ἡπατημένοι ὡς σεαυτὸν κηρύξαντος καὶ
οὐχί Χριστόν: 228
293
Μὲγάλη Ἀπόφασις: 200

Μονογενής: 153
Νοῦς: 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 280 280 280 281
Ὁ Πέτρος ἀπεκρίθη· ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν οὔτε θεοὺς εἶναι ἐφθέγξατο παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα τὰ
πάντα οὔτε ἑαυτὸν θεὸν εἶναι ἀνηγόρευσεν, ὑιὸν δὲ θεοῦ τοῦ τὰ πάντα διακοσμήσαντος
τὸν εἱπόντα αὐτὸν εὐλόγως ἐμακάρισεν καὶ ὁ Σίμων ἀπεκρίνατο· οὐ δοκεῖ σοι οὖν τὸν ἀπὸ
θεὸν εἶναι; καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἔφη· πῶς τοῦτο εἶναι δύναται, φράσον ἡμῖν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἡμεῖς
εἰπεῖν σοι οὐ δυνάμεθα ὃτι μὴ ἡκούσαμεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ.: 155
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαι καὶ εὐχαριστίαι, ὑπό τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι, τέλειαι μόναι καὶ
εὐάρεστοι εἰσι τῷ θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός φημι: 170
Ὅτι, φησίν, πάντων πρώτη ἐκτισθη διὰ τοῦτο πρεσβυτέρα, καὶ διὰ ταύτην ὁ κόσμος
κατηρτίσθη. : 90
Οὐχ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅν τρόπον διὰ λόγου
θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεῖς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἱμα ὑπερ σωτηρίας
ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ
ἧι αἱμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ
καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα θδιδάχθημεν εἶναι: 176
Πάντα ὑπομείνας ἣγκρατὴς τὴν θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο. ἣσθιεν γὰρ καὶ ἔπιεν ἰδίως οὐκ
ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα, ποσαύτη ἦν αὐτῷ τῆς ἐγκρατείας δύναμις, ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι
τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οῦκ εἶχεν.: 213
Παῖς: 152
Περὶ ἀρχῶν: 50
Περίοδοι Πέτρου διὰ Κλήμεντος Ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου: 251
Πίστις Σοφία: 208
Πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριτὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν) ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν
μονογενῇ: 129
Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ: 90
Σευηριανοὶ βλασφημοῦντες Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς μηδὲ
τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι: 241
Σὺ εἶ ὁ θεὸς μόνος καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς σου καὶ ἡμεῖς λαός σου καὶ πρόβατα τῆς νομῆς
σου: 269
Τατίανος Ἰουστινου ἀκροατὴς γεγονώς . . . . μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν ἀποστὰς τῆς
ἐκκλησίας, οἰημ ́ ατι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς . . . . ἰδ́ ιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο.:
196
Τὸ δόγματος ὄνομα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης. Ὅτι δὲ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει,
μαρτυρεῖ μὲν, ἱκανῶς ἡ δογματικὴ τῶν ἰατρῶν τέχνη μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν φιλοσόφων
294
καλούμενα δόγματα. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὰ συγκλήτῳ δόξαντα ἔτι καὶ νῦν δόγματα συγκλήτου
λέγεται, οὑδένα ἀγνοεῖν οἶμαι.: 7
Τῶν γε μὲν ἑρμηχευτῶν αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον, Ἐβιωναίον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι
. . . . καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμάχου εἰσέτι νῦν φερεται, ἐν οἶς δοκεῖ πρὸς τὸ κατὺ
Ματθαῖον ἀποτεινόμενος εὐαγγέλιον τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἵρεσιν κρατύνειν: 248
Τῷ ἀγαπῶνί ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτῷ, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα: 75
Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τα πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται: 153
Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεθμα ἐγήνετο σὰρξ καὶ οὥτως ἡμᾶς
ἡκάλεσεν: 159
Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σάρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς
ἐκάλεσεν: 264
Χριστὸς ὤν θεοῦ λόγος πρό αἰώνων: 160
Χριστὸς, ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὣν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα καὶ πάσης κτίσεως ἀρχὴ, ἐγένετο σάρξ
καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν.: 265
Χριστος Ἰησοῦς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων . . . . . ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μόρφην δούλου λαβών,
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, καὶ σχήματι εὐρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν
ἑαυτὸν κ.τ.λ.: 264
ἄθεοι: 164
ἄνθρωπος: 162 162
ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς: 162
ἄνωθεν ὄν: 251
ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριστίας: 174
ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς: 129
ἄφοσις ἁμαρτιῶν: 167
ἀγάπη: 124
ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος.: 175
ἀγέννητος: 211
ἀδελφότης: 124
ἀθανασία: 140
ἀθανασία (ζωὴ αἰώνιος): 51
ἀληθεία τῆς σαρκός: 162
ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν πνευματικὸν μὴ δεδυνῆσθαι αὐτὴν μορφῶσαι, ἐπειδὴ ὁμοούσιον ὑπῆρχέν
αὐτῇ: 211
ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖς· καὶ μὴν περιτέτμηται ὁ λαὸς εἰς σφραγῖδα.: 146
ἀνάστασις: 101
ἀνάστασις σαρκὸς: 149
ἀνάστασις, ζωὴ ἀιώνιος: 119
295
ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἴματι θεοῦ: 154

ἀνακεφαλαίωσις: 212
ἀναπλασσειν: 141
ἀναστάσις: 166 166
ἀναστήσεις τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην.: 139
ἀνέπτη εἰς οὐρανὸν ὅθεν καὶ ἧκε, instead of ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.: 214
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ: 168
ἀνσιθἑσεις: 221
ἀπαγορεύω μήτε συνέρχεσθαι τοὺς ἀρτοκόκους κατ᾽ ἑταιρίαν μήτε παρεστηκότας
θρασύνεσθαι. πειθάρχεἰν δε πάντως τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος ἐπιταττομένοις
κ.τ.λ. or the exhortation: κολλᾶσθε τοἶς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται:
123
ἀπέθανεν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς: 75
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κὸσμου: 159
ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑμετέρου γένους: 242
ἀπὸστολοι, προφῆται: 177
ἀπόδειξιν μηδεμίαν περὶ ὧν λέγουσιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀλόγως ὡς ὑπὸ λύκου ἄρνες
συνηπρασμένοι κτλ.: 219
ἀπολύτρωσις: 167 216
ἀποστόλων γένομενος μαθητὴς γὶνομαι διδάσκαλος εθνῶν, τὰ παραδοθέντα ἀξίως
ὑπηρετῶν γινομένοις ἀληθείας μαθηταῖς.: 127
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπταις καὶ ὑπηρέταις τοῦ λόγου: 132
ἀρχὴ πάσης κτίσεως: 265
ἀρχή: 263 263
ἀφθαρσία: 140 142
ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς πατρός προελθῶν: 159
ἅ ἐγὼ ἕωρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῷ: 266
ἅγιος: 152
ἅμα τῷ ἀναβῆναι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ λεχθείσης υἱός
μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε: 158
αἱ κυριακαὶ γραφαί: 131
αἵρεσις, ἐκκλησία: 196
αὐτὸν δὲ μεταγγιζόμενον ἐν σώμασι πολλοῖς πολλάκις καὶ νῦν δὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὁμοίως
ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ πνεῦμα γεγονέναι, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκ παρθένου, ποτὲ
δὲ οὔ καὶ τοῦτον δὲ μετέπειτα ἀεὶ ἐν σώματι μεταγγίζεσθαι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς κατὰ καιροὺς
δείκνυσθαι: 250
αὐτὸς δὲ ἡθέλησεν οὕτω παθεῖν· ἔδει γὰρ ἵνα ἐπὶ ξύλου πάθῃ: 167
296
αὐτὸς δὲ ἵνα καταργήσῃ τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν δείξη, οτι ἐν σαρκὶ
ἕδει αὐτὸν φανερωθῆναι, ὑπέμεινεν, ἵνα καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἀποδῷ καὶ
αὐτὸς εαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν καινὸν ἑτοιμάζων, ἐπιδείξῃ, τῆς γῆς ὤν, ὅτρ τήν ὡνάστασιγ
αὐτὸς ποιήσας κρινεῖ: 167
αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν καὶ κύριος: 153
αὐτοῦ: 154
αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρωπου γενομένου, apart from the γενομένου:
162
αἷμα Ἰ Χρ. ἥτις ἐστὶν χαρὰ αἰώνιος καὶ παράμονος.: 175
αῖμα θεοῦ: 155
βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ: 142
βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (χριστοῦ): 140
βαστάζειν ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ κύριου: 194
βλέπε μήποτε ἀναβῇ ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σου τὴν σάρκα σου ταύτην φθαρτὴν εἶναι.: 139
γεννηθέντα διὰ Μαρίας: 209
γίγνεσθαι σάρξ: 160
γινωσκετε ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἐστιν ὅς ἀρχὴν πάντων ἐποίησεν, καὶ τέλους ἐξουσίαν ἔχων: 147
γνώσις: 137 184 184
γνώσις καὶ ζωή: 121
γνώσις καὶ ζωἡ: 120
γνώσις τῆς ζωῆς: 120
γνῶσις: 206
γνῶσις (ἀλήθεια) καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνος: 129
γνῶσις σωτηρίας: 190
γραφὴ: 124
δεσπότης: 136 148
δημιουργὸς καὶ πατῆρ τῶν αἰώνων: 148
δὶα: 169
διὰ: 169
διὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη: 148
διά τοῦ ἡγαπημένου παιδός σου Ἰησοῦν Χριστοῦ: 269
διάκονοι: 177
διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος θεοῦ: 154
διαασκαλεῖον: 196
διακονία τοῦ λὸγου: 177
διατάξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων: 86
διδάγματα Χριστοῦ: 242
297
διδάγματα τοῦ χριστοῦ: 128

διδάσκαλοι: 177
διδάσκαλος: 153
διδάσκειν ὅτι οὖτὸς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ: 73
διδάσκειν τηρεῖν πάντα ὃσα ἐνετείλατο ὀ Ἰησοῦς: 73
διδαχὴ, (λόγος) κύριου, διδαχὴ (κήρυγμα) τῶν ἀποστόλων: 151
δικαιοσύνη ἐξ ἔργων. : 83
διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεις ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει, ΑΝΑΘΕΜΑ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, καὶ οὐδεις
δύναται εἰπεῖν, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ: 74
δόκησις: 161
δόξα: 263
δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ: 161
δῶρα, προσφοραί: 174
ἔδοξεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν: 137
ἔθνη: 132
ἔι τις δἰ ὀπτασίαν πρὸς διδασκαλίαν σοφισθῆναι δύναται: 253
ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος σου: 148
ἔννομος πολιτεία: 242 242
ἔρχεσθαι (φανεροῦσθαι) εν σαρκί: 162
ἔσομεθα ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης
ἐκτισμένης . . . . , οὐκ οἴομαι δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ἐστιν Χριστοῦ.
λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή. Ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἀν
́ θρωπον ἀρ́ σεν καὶ θῆλυ. τὸ ἀρ́ σεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός
τὸ: 262
ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί· οὗτος λέγει μοιχείαν καὶ φθορὰν καὶ
φιλαργουρίαν καὶ ἀπάτην, ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτοις ἀποστάσσεται: 150
ἐὰν ὁ ἀλλόφυλος τὸν νόμον πράξῃ, Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, μὴ πράξας δέ Ἕλλην: 235
ἐγκράτεια: 119
ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ.: 62
ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὁ δέδωκας μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· καὶ νῦν δόξασον
με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σέαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ῇ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοι: 266
ἐκ: 169
ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς ταύτης αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν (κατὰ μεταβολήν:
175
ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ, τὸν ὑπερ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα, ἐκεῖνον θέλω, τὸν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀναστάντα;: 181
ἐκήρυξας τοῖς κοιμωμένοις; ναί: 168
ἐκκλησία: 51 72 112 213
ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ: 46 72 112
298
ἐκκλησιαστικὸς κανὼν: 237

ἐκλεξάμενος δοῦλόν τινα πιστὸ καὶ εὐάρεστον: 152
ἐκπεπτωκότα παρὰ τὸν τοῦ διῶγμοὐ καιρὸν ἀπὸ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ἐπί τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν
ἐθελοθρησκείαν: 243
ἐλυτρώθητε τιμίῳ αἵματι ὼς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ, προεγνωσμένου μὲν
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ
πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν
ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.: 261
ἐν ἀνθρώποις θεοί: 103
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος” the “πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο” and the “ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο: 265
ἐν δικαιοσυνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος. Ἰ. Χρ.: 156
ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας: 159
ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ: 92
ἐν οἷς θεολογεῖται ὁ χριστός: 155
ἐν ὑιῷ (χριστῷ): 160
ἐνἀρχῇ: 160
ἐνόησα ὑμᾶς κατηρτισμένους ἐν ἀκινήτῳ πίστει, ὥσπερ καθηλωμένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ
κυριοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύμαρι καὶ ἡδρασμένους ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῶ αἵμαρι
Χριστοῦ, πεπληροφορημένους εἰς τὸν κυρίου ἡμῶν, ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ γένους Δαβὶδ κατὰ
σάρκα, ὑιὸν θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ, γεγενημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου,
βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννοῦ, ἱν́ α πληρωθῇ πᾶσα δικαιοσύνη ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀληθῶς ἐπὶ Ποντίου
Πιλάτου καὶ Ἡρώδου τετράρχου καθηλωμένον ὑπέρ ἡμῶν ἐν σαρκί—ἀφ᾽ οὗ καρποῦ ἡμεῖς,
ἀπὸ τοῦ θεομακαρίτου αὐτοῦ πάθους—ἵνα ἄρῃ σύσσημον εἰς τούς αἰῶνας διά τῆς
ἀναστάσεως εἰς τούς ἀγίους καὶ πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ εἴτε ἐν Ἰουδαίοις εἴτε ἐν ἴθνεσιν ἐν ἑνὶ
σώματη τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ.: 181
ἐντλαι (ἐντάλματα): 155
ἐπαγγελία (ζωὴ αἰῴνιος) γνῶσις (ἀληθεία) νόμος (ἐγκρὰτέια): 141
ἐπαγγελία, γνῶσις, νόμος: 141
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνερχόμενοι συνζητεῖτε περὶ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέροντος: 123
ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τοῦ ὑψίστου: 154
ἐπὶσκοπος ἐπισκόπων: 253
ἐπίσκοποι: 103 177
ἐπίσκοποι δαίμονες: 102
ἐπίσκοπος: 102
ἐπισκοποι: 177
ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ παθους τοῦ θεοῦ μου: 154
ἐπιφάνεια: 212
299
ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες ὅς ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀτοθανεῖν ἀλλὰ ζῆν
ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ παντός.: 175
ἑτέρα μετάνοια οὐκ ἔστιν εἰ μὴ ἐκείνη, ὅτε εἰς ὕδωρ κατέβημεν καὶ ἐλάβομεν ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν τῶν προτέρῶν: 172
εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν κατὰ νόμον, Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι: 243
εἰ γὰρ μή ἦλθεν εν σαρκί, οὐδ᾽ ἄν πως οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐσώθησαν βλέποντες αὐτόν· ὅτε τὸν
μέλλοντα μὴ εἶναι ἥλιον ἐμβλέποντες οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν εἰς τὰς ἀκτῖνας αὐτοῦ
ἀντοφθαλμῆσαι: 161
εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτὴ ἐν χριστῷ ἡλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων
ἐσμέν: 77
εἰκότως Ἰουδαίοίς μὲν νόμος, Ἕλλεσι δὲ φιλοσοφία μέχρις τῆς παρουσίας ἐντεῦθεν δὲ ἡ
κλῆσις ἡ καθολική: 48
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: 72
εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην καὶ κυριύτητα: 154
εἰς τὸ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: 72
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα: 72
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα : 72
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ ὑιοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου ρνεύματος: 72
εἰσὶ γὰρ τινες αἱρέσεις τὰς Παύλου ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ ἀποστόλου μὴ προσιέμεναι ὥσπερ
Ἐβιωναῖοι ἀμφότεροι καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι ̕Σγκρατηταί: 241
εἱ̂ς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός: 61
εὐαγγέλιον (κυρίον): 229
εὐαγγέλιον κυρίου: 228
εὐχαριστία: 174 174
εὐχαριστίαν ποιεῖν: 174
εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶνει
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν.: 175
εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ὑπὲρ τῆς γνωσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας.: 175
εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπερ τοῦ ἀγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὖ καεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς
καρδίας ἡμῶν καὶ ὑπέρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως αί ἀθανασίας, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ ταιδος σου: 165
εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν ὑπερ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ παιδός σου: 120
εἶδρ σε πρὸ ποσούτου αἰῶνος, Ερμόδωρε, ἡ Σίβυλλα ἐκείνη, καὶ τότε ἦσθα: 95
εἷς δὲ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὗ πάρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ φανέρωσις: 213
εἷς θεὸς, εἷς νόμος, μία ἐλπίς: 124
ζητεῖ τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ: 124
300
ζωὴ αἰώνιος: 140

ζωὴν αἰώνιον: 140
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ: 265
ἡ γνώμη τοῦ πατρός: 160
ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ θεοῦ: 160
ἡ γραφὴ, τὰ βιβλία: 127
ἡ δὲ παραδεξαμένη τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα τελεσφόροις ὠδῖσι τὸν μόνον καὶ ἀγαπητὸν
αἰσθητὸν ὑιὸν ἀπεκύησε τὸνδε τὸν κὸσμον: 96
ἡ διδασκαλια τοῦ σωτῆρος: 153
ἡ ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφία: 193
ἡ ἐκκλησία: 90
ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ: 79
ἡ παράδοσις— ὁ παραδοθεὶς λόγος— ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας or τὴς παραδόσεως—ἡ πίστις—
ὁ κανών τῆς πίστεως—: 127
ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεἷται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία: 174
ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν, γεννῶσα εἰς ἣν ἐπηγγειλάμεθα ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν.: 125
ἡγαπημένος: 152
ἡγούμενοι: 177
ἡμεῖς δι᾽ εὐχῆς τιμῶμεν τὸν θεὸν, καὶ ταύτην τὴν θυσίαν ἀρίστην, καὶ ἀγιωτάτην μετὰ
δικαιοσύνης ἀναπέμπομεν τῷ δικαίῳ λόγῳ: 170
ἡμεῖς καὶ Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστόν: 131
ἡμεῖς οἱ Χριστὸν τὸν βασιλέα ἔχομεν, ὅτι ἀληθινὸς θεός ἐστιν καὶ ποιητὴς οὐρανοῦ καὶ
γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης. : 163
ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν: 147
ἡμεῖς τούς ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστὸν: 135
ἡμιν δὲ ἐχαρίσω, δέσποτα, πνευματικὴν τροφήν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰων ́ ιον διὰ τοῦ παιδός
σου: 120
ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ: 72
ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον: 175
ἡμῶν: 156
θεὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ: 163
θεὸν πάτερα παντοκράτορα: 130
θεὸν παντοκράτορα: 130
θεὸν προσαγορεύοντες· εἰ καί μέχρι νῦν ὡς ἄνθρωπον ἐφοβήθημεν, ἀλλὰ τούντεῦθεν
κρείττονα σε θνητῆς τῆς φύσεως ὁμολογοῦμεν: 103
θεὸς: 102 103 156
θεὸς Ἀδριανός: 103
301
θεὸς γίνεται τῶν λαμβανόντων: 103

θεὸς ἡν ἐν ἀρχῇ τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν: 160
θεὸς καὶ θεὸς ὑιὸς: 156
θεὸς μονογενής: 156
θεὸς σωτήρ: 148 156
θεὸς τ. ἀληθείας: 148
θεὸς ὣν ὀμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος: 161
θεὸς ὥν ἐν ἀρχῆ πρός τὸν θεόν, : 91
θεός: 154 154 154 154 155 155 155 155 156 156
θεός Σεουῆρος Ευσεβῆς: 103
θεός ἐκ θεοῦ: 156
θεός,”: 155
θεός—χριστος—οἱ δώδεκα ἀποστόλοι—ἐκκλησίαι: 134
θεοί: 103
θεοπιιήσις: 157
θεοποίησις: 102 160
θεοποιήσις: 157
θεος: 155
θεῷ ἐξομολογούμεθα διὰ Ἰ. Χρ.—θεῷ δόξα διά Ἰ. Χρ: 151
θίασος: 196
θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ θέῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὑτ́ η ἐστίν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὀρφάνους
καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν: 170
θύειν: 174
θυσία: 174 174 174
θυσιαστήριον: 170
θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία: 262
ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς, οὐχὶ ὑιὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τύπῳ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:
162
ἴδιος, πρωτόποκος: 153
ἵνα καὶ ἡ σάρξ αὕτη, δουλεύσασα τῷ πνεύμαρι ἀμέμπτως, σχῇ τόπον τινὰ κατασκήνώσεως,
καὶ μὴ δοξῃ τὸν μισθὸν τῆς δουλείας αὐτῆς ἀπολωλεκέναι.: 161
κάγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθή τῷ Ἰσρὰηλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον, V. 19: οὐ δύναται
ὁ ὐιὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ εἀυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἄν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα: 266
καθολικοί: 206
καθὼς αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο καὶ οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμᾶς ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται οἱ
προκηρύξαντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.: 131
302
καὶ αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐκαθάρισε) πολλὰ κοπιάσας καὶ πολλοὺς κόποὺς ἡντληκώς:
166
καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἀπεκλείσθησαν εἰς τοῦτο ἄκοντες εἰπεῖν, ὅτι τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ἀνατρέχει. εἰ
οὖν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἕνα ἀνατρέχει καὶ κατὰ θύαλεντῖνον καὶ κατὰ Μαρκίωνα. Κήρίνθόν τὲ
καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκείνων φλυαρίαν, καὶ ἄκοντες εἰς τοῦτο περιέπεσαν, ἵνα τὸν ἕνα
ὅμολογήσωσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων οὕτως οὖν συντρέχουσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ μὴ θέλοντες τῇ
ἀληθείᾳ ἕνα θεὸν λέγειν ποιήσαντα ὡς ἠθέλσεν: 119
καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικοί: 206
καὶ ἡμῶν (ἐστιν): 242
καὶ μή λεγέτω τις ὑμῶν ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ οὐ κρίνεται οὐδὲ ἀνίσταται.: 139
καὶ ὁ ἄρτος καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον ἁγιάζεται τῇ δύναμει τοῦ ὀνόματος οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ όντα κατὰ τὸ
φαινόμενον οἷα ἐλήφθη, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει εἰς δύναμιν πνευματικήν μεταβέβληται: 216
καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι; τὸ εὐαγγέλιον: 131
καὶ οὐ δεῖ ἡμᾶς μικρὰ φρονεῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν· ἐν τᾧ γὰρ φρονεῖν ἡμᾶς μικρὰ
περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ καί ἐλριζομεν λαβεῖν: 153
καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν δὲ οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ πληρώματι αἰώνων προβεβλῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ τῆς
μητρὸς, ἔξω δὲ γενομένης, κατὰ τὴν γνώμην τῶν κρειττόνων ἀποκεκυῆσθαι μετὰ σκιᾶς
τινός. Καὶ τοῦτον μέν, ἅτε ἅρρενα ὑπάρχοντα, ἀποκὸψαντα ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν σκιὰν,
ἀναδραμεῖν εἱς τὸ πλήρωμα.: 158
καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν γεγονότα· κατ᾽ εἰκόνα μὲν τὸν ὑλικὸν
ὑπάρχειν, παραπλήσιον μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον τῷ θεῷ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν δὲ τὸν ψυχικόν.:
211
καί γὰρ εἶσι τινες, he says, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι,
ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι, οἷς οὐ συντίθεμαι: 159
καινῶς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ Ψριστοῦ σεβόμεθα.: 169
κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικός ἡ συνωδία καὶ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῆ κατὰ τὴν
τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ: 237
κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός: 237
κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως: 134
κανών ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἣ προς τοὺς Ἰουδαίζοντας: 237
κατὰ Χριστόν: 243
κατὰ γνώμην or κατὰ φύσιν: 159
κατὰ κέλευσίν τοῦ κυρίου ὑμῶν, κ.ὼ.λ.: 135
κατὰ πνεῦμα: 130
κατὰ πνεῦμα and κατὰ σάρκα: 166
κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων: 218
κατὰ σάκρα, κατὰ πνεῦμα: 130
303
κατὰ σάρκα: 180

κατὰ σάρκα—κατὰ πνεῦμα: 161
κατὰ τνεῦμα: 180
κατάσκοπος: 102
καταβάς-ἀναβάς: 130
κατ᾽ ἄλλον δέ τρόπον λέγεσθαι θεὸν ζῷον ἀθάνατον λογικὸν σπουδαῖον, ὥστε πᾶσαν
ἀστείαν ψυχήν θεὸν ὑπάρχειν, κἃν περιόχηται, ἄλλως δὲ λενεσθαι θεὸν τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ὄν
ζῷνν ἀθάνατον ὡς τὰ ἐν ἀνθρωποις σοφοῖς περιεχομένας ψυχὰς μὴ ὑπάρχειν θεούς). : 102
κατ᾽ ἀληθείαν: 169
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν: 17 263
κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς.: 128
κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὁς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς: 160
κενοῦσθαι, ταπεινοῦσθαι, πτωχεύειν.: 264
κηρύσσειν τὴν Βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ διδάσκειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.: 71
κλῆσις: 142
κλῆσις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, and the ἐντολαὶ τῆς διδαχῆς: 136
κλῆσις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.: 145
κὸσμος: 96
κόσμον: 216
κόσμον ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι . . . . . . Οὑτ́ ως οὐκ ὡν
̀ θεὸς ἀποὶησε κόσμον οὐκ ὀν
́ τα ἐξ οὐκ ὁν
́ των,
καταβαλόμενος καὶ ὑποστήσας σπερμα τι ἓν ἔχον πᾶσαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου
πανστερμίαν.: 277
κόσμος: 96
κόσμος νοητός: 279
κοινὸς ἄρτος: 174
κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται: 204
κοτμοκράτωρ: 221
κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἐκ μεγάλου ποιμνίου εἰς προσφοράν, ὁλοκαύτωμα δεκτὸν τῷ θεῷ
ἀτοιμασμένον.: 169
κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν: 143
κύριός, ἄγγελος θεοῦ, θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις: 102
κύριος: 148 156
κύριος = δεσποτης: 151
κύριος ζώντων: 264
κύριος, ἄγγελος, κατάσκοπος, ἐπίσκοπος, θεὸς : 102
κύριος, σωτήρ: 153
λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον: 178
304
λαὸς ὁ τοῦ ἡγαπημένου ὁ φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτνόν: 125

λέγει ὁ θεός: 155
λὸγος: 96
λὸγος θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων.: 151
λόγια: 273
λόγοι: 95 281
λόγος: 159 160 181
λόγος ἀληθής: 104 185
λόγος ἀπουράνιος: 134
λόγος θεοὕ: 159
λόγος θεοῦ and λόγος χριστοῦ: 151
λόγος θεοῦ, διδαχή κύριου, κήρυγμα τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων : 111
λόγος μεγαλοσύνης τοῦ θεοῦ: 159
λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ: 157
λόγος τῆς πίστεως: 137
λύτρν: 62
μάθησις: 190
μαθήτας: ἀμην: 216
μαθηταί: 71
μεγάλη ἐξουσια καὶ κυριότης: 157
μεσίτης: 90
μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος: 263
μετάνοια: 119
μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι ὁτ́ ι οὑτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐαν
̀ φαίνηται ὡς ἀν
́ θρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπον γεννηθεὶς
καὶ ἐκλογῇ γενόμενος εἰς τὸ Χριστὸν εἰναι ἀποδεικνύηται: 152
μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκε, διαμένειν. Σωθήσεσθαι
γὰρ τοὺς ἐτί τὸν ἐσταρωμένον ἡλπικότας ἀπεφαίνετο, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς
εὐρίσκωνται . . . . τὸ δὲ πῶς ἔστι μία ἀρχή, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν, οὕτω δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον
. . . . μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγέννητος θεός, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν.: 219
μὴ εὑρίοκοντες τὴν διαίρεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνος, δυὸ ἀρχὰς ἀπεφήναντο
ψιλῶς καὶ ἀναποδείκτῶς: 219
μὴ ὄν: 280
μηδὲ κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μόνοι οἰόμενοι τὸν θεὸν γιγνώσκειν οὐκ
ἐπίστανται, λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ σελήνη, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ σελήνη
φανῇ, σάββατον οὐκ ἀγουσι τὸ λεκόμενον πρῶτον, οὐδὲ γεομηνίαν ἄγουσιν, οὐδὲ ἄζυμα,
οὐδὲ ἑορτήν, οὐδὲ μεγάλην ἡμέραν.: 146
μία ἀρχὴ: 224
305
μία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις;: 134
μνημονεύοντες ὧν εἶπεν ὁ κυρίος διδάσκων: 153
μὸνος ἀληθινὸς: 127
μον: 154
μονογενὴς θέος: 85
μυσταγωγία: 190
μυστήριον: 171
νεκρῶν: 264
νεώτεροι: 176
νεώτερος ὑιός: 96
νὸμος: 181
νόμος ἄνευ ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης: 141
νόμος τ. ἐλευθερίας: 141
νόμος τνευματικός: 78
νόμου πολιτεία: 249
νομίζοντες ἀπὸ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι καί ὑιὸν θεοῦ, καὶ εἶναι μὲν
πρότερον ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατὰ προκοπὴν δὲ εἰληφέναι τὴν τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ
προσηγορίαν: 160
νουθετεῖν καὶ ἐλέγχειν: 109
νοῦς: 103
ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὑπέμεινεν παθεῖν, κ.τ.λ.: 131
ὁ Πέτρος ἔκκριτος ἡν τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ πτόμα τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ κορυφή τοῦ σόρου.: 135
ὁ ἄνωθεν ὲρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστιν. ὁ ὤν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς
λαλεῖ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστιν: 266
ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἡμῶν θεὸς ὁ εὔσπλαγχνος, ὁ ἐλεήμων, ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ καθαρός, ὁ ἀμίαντος, ὁ μόνος,
ὁ εἷς, ὁ ἀμετάβλητος, ὁ εἰλικρινής, ὁ ἄδολος, ὁ μὴ ὀργιζόμενος, ὁ πᾶσης ἡμῖν λεγομένης
ἣ νοουμένης προσηγορίας ἀνώτερος καὶ ὑψηλότερος ἡμῶν θεὸς Ἰησοῦς: 163
ὁ ἁγαπητὸς παῖς: 152
ὁ βίος ἡμῷν ὅλος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἦν εἰ μὴ θάνατος: 149
ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὗτος παιδαγωγὸς τότε μὲν “φοβηθήση κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἔλεγεν, ἡμῖν δὲ
“ὰγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεὸν σου” ταρῄνεσεν. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐντέλλεται ἡμῖν “παύσασθε
ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων ὐμῶν” τῶν ταλαιῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, “μάθετε καλὸν ποιεῖν, ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ
καὶ ποίησον ἀγαθόν, ἡγάπησας δικαιοσύνην, ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν” αὕτη μου ἡ νέα διαθήκη
παλαὶῷ κεχαραγμένη γράμματι.: 128
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγω Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραήλ, ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ πνεῦμα ἀρχικὸν
καὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ προεκτίσθησαν προ παντος ἐρ́ γου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ . . . . ἐγὼ πρωτογονος
παντὸ ζώος ζωουμένου ὑπὸ θεοῦ.” : 90
306
ὁ δοθεῖσα πίστις—τὸ κήρυγμα—τὰ διδὰγματα τοῦ χριστοῦ—ἡ διδαχὴ—τὰ μαθήματα, or τὸ

μάθημα: 127
ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν,
ἐπ
́ ειτα τὸ πνευματικόν. ὁ πρῶτος ἀν́ θρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός ὁ δεύτερος ἀν́ θρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ:
263
ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀποστολὴν ἐθνῶν, ὁ ἐκπέμψας ἡμας εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην θεός, ὁ
δειξας ἑαυτὸν διὰ τῶν ἀποςτολῶν: 135
ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ πῦρ φιλοϋλον.: 181
ὁ εὔσπλαγχνος θεός καὶ κυριός ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐβούλετο ἀπολέσθαι μάρτυρα
τῶν ἰδίων παθημάτων: 154
ὁ θεὸς (κύριος) λέγει.: 127
ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκεν τὸν Χριστὸν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ:
262
ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου: 262
ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν: 155
ὁ θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιάς Ἰσραηλιτίδος: 154
ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὑιὸν πόμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινεν
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῆ σαρκί: 264
ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἐγὼ ἤδη καταστρέφειν ἐπιτάττομαι τὸν βίον . . . . ὁ κληθεις ἀθάνατος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν
ἤδη θανεῖν ἀπάγομαι: 103
ὁ θεὸς, ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον
δῷν. κ.τ.λ.: 152
ὁ θεός: 154
ὁ θεός Δάβιδ: 154
ὁ θεός ἡμῶν: 159
ὁ θεός μου: 181
ὁ κύριος: 131 131 152 156
ὁ κύριος (ἡμῶν): 150
ὁ κύριος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν εἷπεν: 153
ὁ λαὸς ὅν ἡτοίμασεν ἡν τῷ ᾐγαπημόνῳ αὐτοῦ.: 152
ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο: 265
ὁ μονογενὴς παῖς: 152
ὁ πατὴρ καὶ κτίστης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου: 148
ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν: 150
ὃπερ ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός: 251
ὃς ἃν οὖν ἐλθών διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα, δέξασθε αὐτόν.: 183
307
ὅπως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸν κατηριθμημένον τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὅλῳ κόσμῳ διαφυλάξῃ
ἄθραυστον ὁ δημιουργὸς τῶν ἁπάντων διὰ τοῦ ἡγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.:
125
ὅσον δύνασαι ἁγνεύσεις: 194
ὅτε εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί: 77
ὅτε εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ἀποκαλύψσαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ: 77
ὅτε ᾒτωσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος τὸν ἂρτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον καὶ ηὐλόγησεν αὐτὰ λέγων· τοῦτο
ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου καὶ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἐπὲτρεψε ταύταις the women) συστῆναι ἡμῖν . . . . Μάρθα
εἶπεν διὰ Μαριάμ, ὅτι εἶδεν αὐτὴν μειδιῶταν. Μαρία εἶπεν οὐκέτι ἐγέλασα.: 93
ὅτε ᾔτησεν ὁ διδασκάλος τὸν ἄρτον: 153
ὅτι α διαθήκη ἐκείνων: 242
ὅτι εώρακας με πεπίστευκας, μακαριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδοντες καὶ πιστέυσαντες: 77
ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας: 264
ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν τῇ πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ· ἡ μὲν οὐν ἐν φωνῇ
ὁμολογια καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἥν μόνην ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοί,
οὐχ ὑγιῶς δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκρισαὶ ὁμολογεῖν.: 215
ὁμοούσιος: 211
οἰκονομία εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: 162
οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦς ὁ χριστὸς ἀπρ
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξεπόμφθη. ὁ χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ·
ἐγένοντο οὖν ἀμφότερα εὐτάκτῶς ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.: 134
οἱ αὐτὴν τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἡμῖν πίστιν καὶ ἐλπιδα ἔχοντες: 167
οἱ δοκοῦντες ἔχειν θεὸν: 146
οἱ κύριοι: 151
οἱ ορθεγνώμενες κατὰ πάντα χριστανοί εἰσιν: 204
οἱ περὶ τὸν Πετρὸν: 135
οἱ προφηται, ἀπὸ τοῦ κύριου ἐχοντες τὴν χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἑπροφήτευσαν.: 128
οἱ προφῆται κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν έζησαν: 147
οὐ πάντοτέ σε ὡς θεάν ἡγησάμην: 103
οὔτε χριστιανοὶ ὑπάρχοντει οὔτε Ἰουδαῖοι οὔτε Ἕλληνες, ἀλλὰ μέσον ἀπλῶς ὑπάρχοντες:
249
οὐδὲ γάρ ξωὴ ἄνευ γνώσεως οὐδὲ γνῶσις ἀσφαλὴς ἄνευ ζωῆς ἀληθοῦς· διὸ πλησιον
ἐκάτερον πεφύτευται: 140
οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου:
266
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρὸς με, εἄν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύση αὐτὸν: 265
οὐδεὶς πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει: 166
308
οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καί εὐσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ;: 77
οὐχὶ ὑιὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλ: ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, τωπῷ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς: 159
οὕτως δύναμιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ μελετᾷ εἶναι θεός, κακὸν μὲν οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν
ἀγνοίας εἶναι νομίζουσα: 102
οὕτως καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ ἐξορκιζόμενον καὶ τὸ βαπτίσμα γινόμενον οὐ μόνον χωρεῖ τὸ
χεῖρον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγιασμὸν πποσλαμβάνει.: 216
οὖν: 177
οὗτὸς, καθά φησιν Ἰππόβοτος, εἰς ποσος τον τερατείας ἤλασεν, ὥστε Ἐρινύος ἀναλαβὼν
σχῆμα περιῄει, λέγων ἐπισκοπος ἀφἶχθαι ἐξ Ἅιδου τῶν ἁμαρτόμένων, ὅπως πάλιν κατιὼν
ταςτα ἀπαγγέλλοι τοῖς ἐκεῖ, δαίμοσιν: 102
οὗτος ὁ αἰών: 150
πάθος: 166
πάθος (αἷμα, σταυρός): 166
πάντα ἅ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἔγνώρισα ὐμῖν: 266
πάροικος: 124
παθήματα τοῦ θεοῦ: 159
παντὸς τοῦ κοσμου κύριος: 159
παντοκράτωρ: 147
παραδοθεὶς λόγος: 129
παρέδωκα ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὁ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν
ἡμῶν: 75
παροικοῦσα τὴν πόλιν: 124
παῖς θεοῦ: 120 268
πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἤ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ
εὐαγγελίω: 60
περὶ δικαιοσύνης—τερὶ προσφυοῦς ψυχῆς—ἡθικὰ—περὶ ἐγκρατείας ἡ περὶ εὐνουχίας: 197
περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ: 194
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ
θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἀγιωςύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν: 263
περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας: 281
περὶ τῆς ἐκλογίων φιλοσοφίας: 273
περὶ τῶν προτέρων ἀγνοημάτων τῷ θεῷ μονῷ δυνατὸν ἴασιν δοῦναι· αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἐστι πᾶσα
ἐξουσία. Præd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: ὅσα ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ τις ὑμῶν ἐποίησεν μὴ εἐδὼς
σαφῶς τὸν θεὸν, ἐὰν ἐπιγνοὺς μετανοήσῃ, τάντα αὐτῷ ἀφεθήσεται τὰ ἀμαρτήματα.: 141
περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα: 79
πετὴρ τῆς ἀληθείας: 148
309
πίστις: 141 141 176 206

πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα: 130
πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πετέρα παντοκράτορα.: 130
πνεῦμα: 92 164 216
πνεῦμα Χριστός: 264
πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν: 263 264
πνεῦμα θεοῦ: 116
πνεῦμα ὁ θεὸς, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καί ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν:
169
πνεῦμα, νοῦς: 102
πνεῦμα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί: 213
ποηοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐσόμεθα ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης τῆς
πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισμένης . . . . ἐκκλησία ζῶσα σῶμά ἐστι Χριστοῦ·
λέγει γάρ ἡ γραφή· ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄρσεν καί θῆλυ. Τὸ ἄρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ
Χριστός, τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία.: 125
ποιεῖν: 174 174
ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Χριστὸῦ: 155
πολιτεία ἐν τῷ κοσμῳ: 149
πολλάκις γεννηθέντα καὶ γεννώμενον πεφηνέναι καὶ φύεσθαι, ἀλλάσσοντα γενέσεις καὶ
μετενσωματούμενον: 250
πολλοὶ ὡσπερεὶ ἅκοντες προσεληλύθασι χριστιανισμῶ, πνεύματός τινός τρέψαντος . . .
καὶ φαντασιώσαντος αὐτοὺς ὕπαρ ἤ ὄναρ: 53
ποτήρια οἴνῳ κακραμένα προσποιούμενος εὐχαριστεῖν. Καὶ ἐπί πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον
τῆς ἐπικλῆσεως, πορφύρεα καὶ ἐρυθρὰ ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ, ὡς δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὸρ
τὰ ὅλα χάριν τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ ποτηρίῳ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ὑπεριμείρεσθαι τοὺς παρόντας ἐξ ἐκείν9;υ γεύσασθαι τοῦ πόματος, ἵνα καὶ εἰς αὐτοὺς
ἐπομβρήσῃ ἡ διὰ τοῦ μάγου τούτου κληϊζομένη χάρις.: 216
πρεσβύτεροι: 176 177
προβολή: 256
προέλεγεν, ὅτε ἐδίδασκν: 153
προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου: 262 265 266
προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, he is the ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ: 262
προεγνωσμένος πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθείς κ.τ.λ.: 263
προεγνωσμένος, φανερωθείς: 262
προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθεὶς δὲ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς
εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ
ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.: 267
310
προκοπὴ: 160
προορῶντας τοὺς λόγους τοῦ διδασκάλου ἡμῶν: 153
προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: 156
προστάτης καὶ βοηθὸς τῆς ἀσθενείας, and as ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν: 156
προσφέρειν τὰ δῶρα: 174
προσφορὰ, δῶρα: 170
προσφορὰς προσφέρειν προσέταξεν ἡμῖν ὁ σωτήρ, ἀλλὰ οὐχί τὰς δι᾽ ἀλόγων ζώων ἣ τούτων
τῶν θωμιαμάτων ἀλλὰ διὰ πνευματικῶν αἴνων καὶ δοξῶν καὶ εὐχαριστίας καὶ διὰ τῆς εἰς
τοὶς πλησίον κοινωνίας καὶ ε̰ποιίας.: 170
προσφορά: 174
προσφοραί: 174
προϊστάμενοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας: 177
πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖσ: 262
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν: 262
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως: 262
πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, κ.τ.λ:
127
πυκνῶς μετανοοῦσι: 216
πῶς οὖν γεγράφατε ὅτι θεός ὁ διὰ σάρκος παθὼν καὶ ἃναστάς, . . . . οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ
δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαὶ ἣ θεὸν διὰ σαρκὸς παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα: 154
σάκρα λαβών: 130
σάρξ: 157 160 161 162 167 175 264 266
σάρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ ὑπέρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσα: 166
σάρξ ἐγένετο: 162
σάρξ παθοῦσα: 176
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν: 140
σαρκος ἀνάστασιν: 214
σοφία, σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, γνῶσις (τῶν δικαιωμάτων), from the λόγος θεοῦ τῆς πίστεως:
136
συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν: 228
συναγωγή, σύστημα, διατριβή, αἱ ἀθρώπιναι συνηλύσεις, : 196
συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: 262
συνταλαίπωροι καὶ συμμισούμενοι: 227
συνώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι λέγεται.: 102
σφραγίς: 172
σώτηρ: 120
311
σωθήσεσθαι τοὺς ἐπί τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἡλπικότας, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς
εὐρίσκωνται.: 218
σωτερία: 119
σωτὴρ: 156
σωτήρ: 119 156 156
σωτηρία, ἀπολύτρωσις: 167
τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τ. ἀποστόλων: 131
τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ: 154
τά λόγια (κυριακά): 131
ταλαίπωροι καὶ μισούμενοι: 226
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας: 72
ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ: 72
ταῦτα τοις ἐπιδεομένοις χορηγῶν : 103
τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα ἥν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ: 266
τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον: 142
τνεῦμα (λόγος): 266
τὸ ἀδιδάκτως ἄνευ ὀπτασίας καὶ ὀνείρων μαθεῖν ἀποκάλυψίς ἐστιν: 253
τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς . . . καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν
καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἥμῶν.: 162
τὸ βάθος ἑκάστου ἡ ὕλη: 280
τὸ βάπτισμα ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα: 172
τὸ δὲ κύημα τῆς μητρὸς τῆς “Ἀχαμώθ,” ὁμοούσιον ὑπάρχον τῇ μητρίς: 211
τὸ διδασκάλιον τῆς θείας ἀρετῆς: 116
τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα: 264
τὸ πάθος τοῦ θεοῦ μου; Eph. 7: 155
τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μελαγοσύνης τοῦ θεοῦ: 159
τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχεται βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης κ.τ.λ.: 30
τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον: 128
τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑιὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον πνεῦμα: 163
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ
Ποντιον Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα; τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν,
ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας
καὶ νεκρούς· καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἁγίαν ἐκκλισίαν, ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν,
ἀμήν.: 129
τὸν σωτῆρα λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ γὰρ κύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θὲλουσιν—κύριος and δεσπότης:
102
τὸν τοῦ χριστοῦ λόγον, with λόγος θεοῦ περὶ ἐγκατείας, καὶ ἀναστάσεως: 119
312
τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ μή γεγεννῆσθαι ἐστιν, ὑιοῦ δὲ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι λεννητὸν δὲ ἀγεννήτῳ ἤ καὶ
αὐτυγεννήτῳ οὐ συνκρίνεται: 253
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε: 174
τρίας: 211
τροφὴ εὐχαριστηθεῖςα: 174
τροφὴ πνευματική: 175
τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ: 90
τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν εἰσὶν βοηθοὶ φόβος καὶ ὑπομονή, τὰ δὲ συμμαχοῦντα ἡμῖν μακροθυμία
καὶ ἐγκράτεια· τούτων μενόντων τὰ πρὸς κόριον ἁγνῶς, συνευφραίνονταί αὐτοῖς σοφία,
σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, γνῶσις: 137
τῷ μόνῳ θεῷ ἀοράτῳ, πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, τῷ ἐξαποστείλαντι ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ ἀρχηγὸν
τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον ζωήν, αὐτῷ
ἡ δόξα.: 127
τῷ ὑιῷ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὑιῷ θεοῦ: 162
ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας ἧς ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ, or ὑπὲρ
τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, and 1 Clem. 36. 2: διὰ τούτο ἡθέλησεν ὁ δεσπότης τῆς ἀθανάτου
γνώσεως ἡμᾶς γεύσασθαι: 140
ὑπὸ διαβόλου ταύτην παραδίδοθσαι δογματίζουσι, μιμεῖσθαι δ᾽ αὐτοὺς οἱ μεγάλαυχοί φασι
τὸν κύριον μήτε γήμαντα, μήτε τι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ κτησάμενον μᾶλλον παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους
νενοηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καυχόμενοι: 194
ὑφ᾽ ὧν κλάδων σκεπασθέντες οἱ πάντες ὡς ὅρνεα ὑπὸ καλιὰν συνελθόντα μετέλαβον τῆς
ἐξ αὐτῶν προερχομένης ἐδωδίμου καὶ ἐπουρανίου τροφῆς: 134
φανεροῦσθαι: 258 259 264
φανεροῦσθαι ἐν σαρκί: 160
φασὶ τοὺς μὲν προτέρους ἅπαντας καί αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους παρειληφέναι τε καὶ
δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἅ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, καὶ τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθεια τοῦ κηρύγματος
μέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Βίκτορος . . . ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχαράχθαι
τὴν ἀλήθειαν.: 158
φεύγετε οὐ τὰς φύσεις ἀλλὰ τὰς γνώμας τῶν κακὧν: 215
φιλανθρωπία: 254
φιλοξενία: 177
φρονεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς περὶ θεοῦ: 153
φωτισμός: 172 173 173
χάρις μετανοίας: 167 167 167
χαρίσματα: 177
χριστός”: 151
ψίλὸς ἄνθρωπος: 161
313
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ.: 168

ὠς ὁ νομος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ κύριος: 131
ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τῶν ζωδίων ἡ γένεσις διοικεῖται, οὕτως ὐπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἡ ἀναγέννησις:
134
ὡς αὐτός φησιν ὁ Βασιλείδης, ἑν
̀ μέρος ἐκ τοῦ λεγομένου θελήματος τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπειλήφαμεν,
τὸ ἡγαπηκέναι ἅπαντα. ὅτι λόγον ἀποσώζουσι πρὸς τὸ πᾶν ἅπαντα· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ μηδενὸς
ἐπιθυμεῖν, καὶ τὸ τρίτον μισείν μηδὲ ἕν?: 191
ὡς περὶ θεοῦ: 92 153
ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσιας, καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ταύσησθε τοῦ θύεὶν, οὐ παύσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ
ὁργὴ: 251
ῖνα ὁ καινὸς νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ ἀνθρωποποιητον ἔχῃ τὴν
προσφοράν.: 169
“θεός”: 156
“ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ”: 153
314
Latin Words and Phrases
Index of Latin Words and Phrases
(Ebionitæ) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod
legis cæremonias Christi evangelio miscuerunt, et sic nova confessa sunt, ut vetera non
omitterent.: 245
Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur: 224
Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro
adulteratam recurasse: 227
Apostoli et discentes ipsorum: 133
Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent: 134
Apostoli quæ sunt Judæorum sentientes scripserunt: 227
Apostolorum principem: 228
Apostolos admiscuisse ea quæ sunt legalia salvatoris verbis: 227
Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi.: 227
Atque adeo præ se ferunt Marcionitæ: quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem,
inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur.: 220
Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo: 154
Cessatio delicti radix est veniæ, ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus: 141
Christiani rudes: 185
Consensus repetitus: 32
Corpus sumus: 124
De verbi autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos con-
vertendi, sed nostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non si
jacentibus elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio
ædificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua ædificent. Adime illis
legem Moysis et prophetas et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent.: 204
Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova quædam et inaudita
super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris
salvatoris et sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion
sedet a sinistris. Porro alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt in-
telligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed Apostolum Paulum.: 228
Deus incognitus: 222
Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur. Tingit
et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repro-
mittit, et si adhuc memini, Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis
oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit . . . . summum pontificem in unius nuptiis
statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes.: 172
315
Dispares deos, alterum, judicem, ferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantum-
modo bonum atque optimum.: 220
Dixit Jesus ad suos μαθη τας: α μην: 216
Dominus: 102
Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum præparatus sum, ut sim arbiter (μεσι της:
90
Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, quæ omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, græcis, latinis
ducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis et magnis sibi cavere,
nisi litteras et historiam assumat.: 33
Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hæreticos fere non sunt, quia cum Sint, non parent. Schisma
est enim unitas ipsa.: 191
Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere
præsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: “Quoniam unus est dominus.” De
Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut ilium omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum
omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini.: 150
Felix aqua quæ semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus non est.: 172
Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus, quod erat extrinsecus, tangens
manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum
manui præbuisse discipuli.: 161
Gentiles quamvis idola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et
confitentur [!]; in hunc Marcion, blasphemat, etc.: 232
Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem et
de reliqua materia fabricatas habent et eas coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus
mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagoræ et Platonis et Aristotelis et
reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.: 195
Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minor’s loci, ut maioris fieri possit,
si quern gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit: 179
Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare
indigent, ut instituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui
Christiani vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, qualia
qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos
habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearam abhorrent. Sunt
enim inter eos feminas et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui
in animis regendis coërcendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil
cedant vere philosophantibus.: 192
Immo inquiunt Marcionitæ, deus poster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed
per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu.: 220
316
Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in cœlo, neque in terra
putat se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum institorio
et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem habens . . . . Plurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos
spiritales vocant, et se nosse jam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum:
214
Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum.: 186
Major pæne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt.: 53
Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.: 223
Marcionitæ interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici ilium quasi ab
oculis: 224
Mariccus . . . . iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus, nomen id sibi indiderat: 103
Mundus ille superior: 219
Nam Jacobum apostolum Symmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui
ad dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam
etiam Jesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam gen-
eralem, et aliæ hujusmodi blasphemiæ.: 248
Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitæ convertuntur ad destructionem operum
creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?: 221
Naturam si expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.: 121
Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi.: 42
Nullus potest hæresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona naturæ quæ a deo
artifice sunt creata: talis fait Valentinus, talis Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis
Bardesanes, cujus etiam philosophi admirantur ingenium.: 186
Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sæculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre.:
163
Prius est prædicare posterius tinguere: 171
Ptolemæus nomina et numeros Æonum distinxit in personales substantias, sed extra deum
determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluser-
at.: 192
Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum. Polemon (judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the
co-defendant Christians had immediately before confessed God the Creator]. Respondit:
Non; sed ipse quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt: 163
Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis
synagogas inter Judæos (!) hæresis est, que dicitur Minæorum et a Pharisæis nunc usque
damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaræos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum filium dei natum de
Virgine Maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et
nos credimus; sed dum volunt et Judæi esse et Christiani, nec Judæi sunt nec Christiani.:
245
317
Quid novi attulit dominus veniens?: 221

Quoniam opera bona, quæ fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sæculo its prosunt: 253
Sacrorum pleraque initia in Græcia participavi. Eorum quædam signa et monumenta tradita
mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.: 172
Scio dicturos, atqui hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito fa-
miliaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque
nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur.: 222
Scio scripturam Enoch, quæ hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec
in armorium Judaicum admittitur . . . sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino
prædicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus
omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judæis potest jam videri pr-
opterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fera quæ Christum sonant. . . . . Eo accedit quod Enoch apud
Judam apostolum testimonium possidet.: 99
Sed enim nationes extraneæ, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia id-
olis suis subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per la-
vacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithræ; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt.
Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlatæ aqua expiant passim.
Certe ludis Apollinaribus et Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem
periuriorum suorum agere præsumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat,
purgatrices aquas explorabat.: 172
Sensus, motus, affectus dei: 164
Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt negare
discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indur-
antur in hanc hæresim.: 221
Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis . . . ex diversitate
sententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum.: 220
Si bona fide quæras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter
temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire to subostendas
negant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua cæde dispergunt.
Ne discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo
prius persuadeant quam edoceant.: 205
Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autem per industriam propriam perfec-
tionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: non ne videtur plus sibi homo adquirere, quam ei deus contulit?:
211
Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio
hominis ad præstandam salutem inefficax judicetur.: 151
Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus.: 131
318
Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars
est: 185
Solius bonitatis: 222
Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii
prærogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit: 179
Spiritus salutaris: 225
Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quæ suum et plenum
habent ordinem apud creatorem.: 219
Sæculum: 149
Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus
ponere: 224
Valentini robustissima secta: 203
Valentiniani frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos.: 203
Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prædicant; si tamen prædicant qui
occultant. Custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est: 205
a ligno: 99
a priori: 80
analogia fidei: 44
articuli fide: 18
articulus constitutivus ecclesia: 14
ascensus in cœlum: 168 168
assumpta: 264
assumptio: 168
assumptio naturæ novæ: 258
carmen dicere Christo quasi deo: 136
collegia tenuiorum: 104
communem fidem adfirmant: 209
consensus patrum et doctorum: 30
corpus permixtum: 47
cœlum tertium: 219
de conscientia religionis et disciplinæ unitate et spei foedere.: 124
de cœlo: 168
decepti deceptores: 282
dei filius: 155
delicta pristinæ cæcitatis: 140
demonstratio veræ carnis post resurrectionem: 130
descensus ad inferna: 168
descensus de cœlo, ascensus in cœlum; ascensus in cœlum, descensus ad inferna: 93
319
deus: 102
deus Jesus Christus: 155
deus melior: 222
disciplina Evangelii: 205
distincte agere: 211
dominus ac deus: 156 156 156
dominus ac deus noster: 102 103
dominus regnavit: 99
ex errare per veritatem ad errorem: 42
ex necessitate salutis: 72
ex professo: 53 228
factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum: 196
fides implicita: 18
finis religionis: 22
frequentissimum collegium: 215
hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui inter Judæos
quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero
gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus adventaverit.: 163
hæc fere summa est doctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a
scripturis vel ab ecclesia Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana . . . . sed dissensio est de quibusdam
abusibus: 18
in abstracto: 21
invisibilia: 222
justitia civilis: 210
lex: 108
malignus: 221
malus: 221
materia subjacens: 219
minori ad majus: 145
mutatis mutandis: 20
ne quid nimis: 106
numen supremum: 102
passiones dei: 154
per semetipsum: 225
personalis substantia: 164
phantasma: 226
phantasma, assumptio naturæ humanæ, transmutatio, mixtura, duæ naturæ: 259
plerique nec Ecclesias habent: 196
320
primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem: 173
profanum vulgus: 190 213
præsens et corporalis deus: 102
præsens numen: 101 190
præter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum in-
nocens ætas, quæ in ecstasi videt: 53
quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas quibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui
malunt contra sacerdotes credere quam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando de Joseph fratres
sui dixerunt: ecce somniator ille: 53
qui est super omnia: 104
qui est super omnia et originem nescit: 103
qui vitam æternam habet: 103
quæ sine scelere prodi non poterit: 23
regula: 209 209 209 209 214
regula fide: 209 209 209
regula fidei: 208 232
regulæ: 209
regulæ fide: 131
renatus in æternum taurobolio: 101
restitutio in integrum: 150
revelatio: 262
salus legitima: 108
sanctiores feminæ: 225
sanguine dei: 154
secundum motum animi mei et spiritus Sancti: 53
secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti: 137
semper idem: 30
sub specie aternitatis et Christi: 240
summum bonum: 219
termini technici: 174
tertium genus: 126
theologia Christi: 154 156
theologia patristica: 31
umbra: 226
unum: 130 130
visibilia: 222
vita beata: 103
vulgus: 190
321
“Sufficit,” said the Marcionites, “unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa
et præcipua bonitate sua”: 218
322
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
Index of Pages of the Print Edition

iv v vi vii viii xix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126
127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172
173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195
196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218
219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241
242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264
265 266 270 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333
334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356
357 358 359 360 361 362
323

Istoria Dogmei

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Istoria Dogmei

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

History of Dogma - Volume I

Author(s): Harnack, Adolf (1851-1930)

• Discuss this book online at http://www.ccel.org/node/3448.

The Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a self supporting non-profit organization at

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.

THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. vii

FROM THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xix

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xii

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. xv

δογματικὴ τῶν ἰατρῶν τέχνη μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν

Die Christliche Religion hat nichts in der Philosophie zu thun,

Dogma and Theology 9

The Presuppositions of the origin of the Apostolic Catholic Doctrine 57

Conceptions of the Work of Jesus 83

Platonic and Stoic Elements in the philiosophy of religion 126

CHAPTER I.—Historical Survey 141–144

Jesus the Christ 184

The premises of Catholicism 218

CHAPTER VI.—The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the notion 287–317

I. On the different notions of Pre-existence 318

PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF

THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE

PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.

2 See Kattenbusch. Luther’s Stellung zu den ökumenischen Symbolen, 1883.

the historian of dogma, and which must determine his method.

compendium of Baumgarten Crusius,32 and that of F. K. Meier,33 stand out prominently

of true historical knowledge, according to Kliefoth, is raised on the ruins of Traditionalism,

des Christenthums,” 1891, has attempted to furnish a refutation in principle of Kaftan’s

THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA

XXII. 31., annulled at once political religion and religious politics.

Bousset. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum, 1892.

Instead of the frequently very fruitless investigations about “Jewish-Christian”, and

124 Proofs in Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.

THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL

Ἐάν μυρίους παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε ἐν χριστῷ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ

1 Cor. IV. 15.

formulæ and an increasingly rich tradition.

epoch. Still we do possess a considerable number of writings and important fragments,10

THE ELEMENT COMMON TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND THE BREACH WITH

13 See, as to this, Celsus in Orig. III. 10 ff. and V. 59 ff.

THE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE

ceivable spiritual blessings.62 Of these the community, so far as it is a community of saints,

Supplement 1.—The moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and righteousness, in

as a society of hypocrites,77 as a synagogue of Satan,78 as a people seduced by an evil angel,79

157 This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap 11. C.

Literature.—The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v.

THE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC

§ 2. The Nature of Gnosticism.

165 Otherwise the rise of Gnosticism cannot at all be explained.

171 See Koffmane, beforementioned work, p. 5 f.

As exoteric it is comprehended in the regula fidei209 (positive), as esoteric it is propagated

no revelations of the supreme God, or at least only in certain parts.213

(g) The assertion that Christ revealed a God hitherto unknown.

MARCION’S ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE THE OLD TESTAMENT

preaching, and endeavoured to reform Christendom, in opposition to the attempts at

APPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS.

263 Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as synonymous.

308 This is also acknowledged in Koffmane, Die Gnosis, etc., p. 33.

On the Conception of Pre-existence.

still more to the Greek one.